John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a lifetime commitment to law and order in the United States. On March 1, 1997, Mr. Roy D. Nedrow retired as the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, ending 33 years of law enforcement service to the community at the local, State, and Federal levels. Mr. Nedrow began his law enforcement career in 1964 with the Berkeley, CA, Police Department and served there for 6 years, first as a patrolman and later as a training sergeant and detective. In 1970, Mr. Nedrow was appointed a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service where he distinguished himself during assignments in the field and at the Service's Headquarters. As a result of his outstanding performance and talents, Mr. Nedrow earned a number of promotions culminating in his appointment to the Senior Executive Service and assignment as the Service's Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Investigations where he oversaw the investigations and protective support activities conducted by the Service's 1,200 special agents at its more than 100 field locations. On December 28, 1992, Mr. Nedrow retired from the Secret Service to accept the appointment as the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. His induction came a critical time in the Agency's history. His strong leadership restored stability to an agency which needed greater independence and a change of direction. Assembling a team of highly qualified professionals, Director Nedrow overhauled the Service, reorganizing it to diminish its bureaucracy, and to provide greater accountability and responsiveness to its consumers. He provided his people with a new vision, the necessary resources and support, and the inspiration to achieve positive change. Under his leadership, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service gained national recognition for its innovation in the field of homicide investigation. Its approach to the investigation of previously unresolved or cold case homicides, some as old as 28 years, was lauded in October 1996 by the International Chiefs of Police [IACP] during its prestigious Webber Seavey Award for Quality in Law Enforcement Ceremony for innovation and excellence in law enforcement programs. The NCIS cold case methodology has since been adopted by numerous law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Director Nedrow also recognized the problems and anxieties endured by families of deceased service men and women whose deaths occurred under other than natural circumstances. He revitalized and championed a Family Liaison Program to assure responsiveness to the needs of, and issues raised by, surviving family members during the death investigation process. His legacy of additional achievements with and for the Service include a well-respected Critical Incident Debriefing Team, a proven Alternative Dispute Resolution system, and a cutting edge Computer Crimes Investigation Group. ``The final test of a leader,'' renowned journalist Walter Lippman wrote in 1945, ``is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.'' The testimony to Roy Nedrow is that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service is indeed a better agency today and that he leaves it in most capable and inspired hands. Mr. President, in closing I wish to commend Roy Nedrow for outstanding leadership and service and thank him for his dedication to the Nation as a guardian of our peace. I wish him, and his wife, Claudia, Godspeed in his retirement. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gladys Raymore Wilson of Independence, MO, who will celebrate her 100th birthday on March 16, 1997. Gladys is a truly remarkable individual. She has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of Gladys' life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives she has touched over the last 100 years. Gladys' celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. Her achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join her many friends and relatives in wishing Gladys health and happiness in the future.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there are developments in a matter that I think command our attention. I would like to bring them to the attention of the Senate. Recently, Senator Dorgan and I, joined by 28 of our colleagues, introduced S. 304, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. It is simply a law that says no Federal tax dollars shall be used to promote or pay for assisted suicide. There had been a threat that we might be asked to pay for assisted suicide with Federal Medicaid funds in the State of Oregon. Oregon enacted what was called Measure 16, which allowed for physician- assisted suicide for terminally ill patients in that State. Oregon officials stated that they would be submitting Medicaid bills to the Federal Government to pay for assisted suicide under the category of ``comfort care,'' a euphemism which is particularly troubling to me. After Oregon passed Measure 16, its implementation was suspended by U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, in Eugene, OR. While the law was not in effect, we would not be asked to pay Federal dollars, tax dollars of American citizens, to end the lives of individuals rather than to sustain their lives. Throughout the history of the Medicaid and Medicare Programs, there has been the presumption that funds for those programs would be used to elevate, encourage, enrich and extend the lives of American citizens. It turns out now that with this one law in one State, we will be asked for Federal resources for medical reimbursements under the health care provided by Oregon's Medicaid program, to end the lives of individuals, to help physicians help patients commit suicide. Senator Dorgan and I, and 28 of our colleagues, have sponsored legislation to prevent such a practice--to prohibit Federal tax dollars from being expended for assisted suicide. Our legislation had an imperative quality because the decision of an appeals court was pending. But today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the action which had suspended the implementation of the Oregon law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in so doing, potentially clears the way for the State of Oregon to begin calling upon the resources of U.S. taxpayers to assist people in their suicides. I have to tell you, this is against the values of many of the people with whom I speak and many of those I represent in the State of Missouri. Key groups and organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life, and the American Medical Association, oppose assisted suicide, and oppose the use of Federal funds for such a practice, as it is an inappropriate expenditure of tax dollars. Mr. President, 87 percent of the American public does not want tax dollars spent on dispensing toxic drugs to end the lives of Americans instead of focusing our resources on therapeutic drugs and other therapies to extend and improve the life of American citizens. It is time for us to understand the urgency of this issue, given the fact the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge to Measure 16. Now, the dismissal of the action is appealable by the parties there. They can appeal back to the Ninth Circuit for a hearing en banc, or to the U.S. Supreme Court. But I raise this in the consciousness of the U.S. Senate to say we do not have a significant amount of time, and I believe the vast majority of citizens in this country never anticipated that their tax resources would be consumed in poisoning fellow citizens under the guise of comfort care in the State of Oregon. We would be derelict in our duty were we to ignore this problem and allow a few officials in one State to decide that taxpayers all across America must help subsidize a practice that has never been authorized in most of America, is considered to be morally abhorrent by many Americans, and is considered to be medically inappropriate by the American Medical Association. Because of today's decision, I implore my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to act swiftly to pass the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act before our tax dollars begin to go for ending, and not saving, the lives of our fellow Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Mildred and Eldred Bredehoeft of Concordia, Missouri, who on April 6, 1997, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Mildred and Eldred's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. President Jefferson wrote in words that are now inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial here in Washington that the ``care and protection of human life, and not its destruction,'' are the only legitimate objectives of good government. Thomas Jefferson believed that our rights are God given and that life is an inalienable right. With this understanding and belief, I urge the Congress and the President to support this bill. It is a modest but necessary effort to uphold our basic principles by forbidding the Federal funding of assisted suicide. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his excellent work, his cooperation in this respect, and his emphasis on what this bill does and what it does not do. There is a narrow focus in this measure. We do not seek to preempt the ability of States to make decisions regarding their own laws, or individuals to make their own decisions. We are merely making reference to the fact that the Federal Government should not be financing assisted suicides. I thank him for his outstanding work and for his excellent effort in developing this legislation, to narrowly focus it and target it in such a way that makes it possible for us to work together. I commend him.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to my colleagues and to the American public about an item which is important and which demands our attention. It is an item of urgency. And because it is, I think it is important that we develop a sense of cooperation and that we act expeditiously. A lot of comment is being heard these days about bipartisanship, the need to cooperate and to be partners and participants rather than being opponents and partisans. The measure about which I will speak today is one that has broad bipartisan support, and I think is something upon which cooperation is not only taking place, but one which will provide the basis for the ultimate passage of the legislation. Members on both sides of the aisle agree that Federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid should provide a means to care for and to protect our citizens--not become vehicles for the destruction or impairment of our citizens. The Declaration of Independence reads: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' It is Congress' responsibility to defend the foremost of our inalienable rights--that of life. In this spirit and understanding, I rise today to introduce with Senators Dorgan, Nickles, Ford, and others, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, a modest and a timely response to the threat that taxes paid by American citizens would be used to finance assisted suicide. What this bill simply says is that Federal tax dollars shall not be used to pay for and promote assisted suicide or euthanasia. We introduced such a bill in the 104th Congress, and have wide bipartisan support for this legislation, with 30 Members of the U.S. Senate as original cosponsors on the bill. This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of our Founding Fathers and the integrity of Federal programs that serve the elderly and the seriously ill, programs which were intended to support and enhance human health and life, not to promote the destruction of human life. Government's role in our culture should be to call us to our highest and best, to expand our capacity to take advantage of the opportunities of life, and to build our capacity for achievement. I do not believe that Government has a place in hastening Americans to their graves. Our court system is, however, on the brink of allowing Federal- taxpayer-assisted suicide funding. This bill is intended to preempt and to prevent proactively such a morally contemptible practice as taking tax money from one American and using it to assist in the suicide of another American. Let me be clear that this bill only affects Federal funding for actions whose direct purpose is to cause or to assist in causing suicide--actions that are clearly condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association and illegal in the vast majority of States. Again, this bill simply prohibits any Federal funding for medical actions that assist suicide. Some might ask why we need such a law. It is because two Federal courts of appeals recently contradicted the positions of 49 States when they found that there is a Federal constitutional ``right'' to physician-assisted suicide. These cases involved New York and Washington State laws which prohibit physician-assisted suicide. The State of Oregon recently passed Measure No. 16. That was the first law in the country that authorized the dispensing of lethal drugs to terminally ill patients to assist in suicide. Although a Federal court in Oregon struck down that law, the case has been to the ninth circuit, one of the appeals courts that has already signaled a strong indication that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. Oregon's Medicaid director and the chairman of the Oregon Health Services Commission have both said that in the event that the ninth circuit would clear the way for Oregon's law to take effect, the federally funded Medicaid Program in Oregon would begin to pay for assisted suicide with public funds in that State. According to the Oregon authorities, the procedure would be listed on Medicaid reimbursement forms under the grotesque euphemism of ``comfort care.'' Unless we pass the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, Oregon could soon be drawing down Federal funds through its Medicaid Program to help pay for assisted suicides. Neither Medicaid, nor Medicare, nor any other Federal health program has explicit statutory language to prohibit the use of Federal funds to dispense lethal drugs for suicide primarily because no one in the history of these programs ever thought that they would be used to end the lives of individuals. We have always focused in these programs on seeking to extend rather than end the lives of Americans. In fact, the Clinton administration's brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States opposing physician-assisted suicide pointed out that: The Department of Veterans Affairs, which operates 173 medical centers, 126 nursing homes, and 55 inpatient hospices, has a policy manual that . . . forbids ``the active hastening of the moment of death.'' ``The active hastening of the moment of death'' sounds a lot like assisted suicide to me. Such guidelines also apply to the VA's hospice program, the military services, the Indian Health Service, and the National Institutes of Health. Nonetheless, if the ninth circuit reinstates Oregon's Measure 16, Federal funds will be used for the so-called comfort care, also known as assisted suicide. I believe we would be derelict in our duty if we were to ignore this problem and allow a few officials in one State to decide that the taxpayers of the other 49 States must help subsidize a practice that they have never authorized and that millions of Americans find to be morally abhorrent. It is crystal clear that the American people do not want their tax dollars spent on assisting the suicide of individuals. Recently, a national Wirthlin poll showed that 87 percent of Americans oppose the use of public funds for this purpose. Even the voters of Oregon, who narrowly approved Measure 16 by a 51- to 49-percent margin, did not consider the question of public funding. The voters of two other west coast States, California and Washington, soundly defeated similar measures to authorize assisted suicide. Since November 1994, when Oregon passed its law, 15 other States have considered and rejected bills to legalize the practice. However, this bill does not talk about authorizing or prohibiting assisted suicide. It merely states that no Federal funds could be used to promote or assist suicide. Let me just say a few words about the way the legislation is crafted. It is very limited. It is very modest, and I think that provides the basis for its bipartisan support. It does not forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide, and it does not forbid using State funds for the practice. It merely prevents Federal funds and Federal programs from being drawn into promoting it. The bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue that the Supreme Court considered last month when it heard the cases of Washington versus Glucksberg and Vacco versus Quill. These are right- to-suicide cases, and the bill does not attempt to answer this complex question. Nor would this legislation be affected by what the Supreme Court decides on the issue. Congress would still have the right to prevent Federal funding of such a practice even if the practice itself had the status of a constitutional ``right.'' As the bill's rule of construction clearly provides, this legislation does not affect any other life issue that some might have strong feelings about. The bill does not affect abortion, or complex issues such as the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, even of nutrition or hydration. Nor does it affect the dispersing of large doses of morphine or other drugs to ease the pain of terminal illness, even when this may carry the risk of hastening death as a side-effect--a practice that is legally accepted in all 50 States, and ethically accepted by the medical profession and even by pro-life and religious organizations. This bill is focused exclusively on prohibiting Federal funding for assisting suicide. Finally, I am pleased to mention those organizations that have joined with us in endorsing this legislation. These include the American Medical Association, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Free Congress, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, and the Traditional Values Coalition. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support from the American Medical Association.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to my colleagues and to the American public about an item which is important and which demands our attention. It is an item of urgency. And because it is, I think it is important that we develop a sense of cooperation and that we act expeditiously. A lot of comment is being heard these days about bipartisanship, the need to cooperate and to be partners and participants rather than being opponents and partisans. The measure about which I will speak today is one that has broad bipartisan support, and I think is something upon which cooperation is not only taking place, but one which will provide the basis for the ultimate passage of the legislation. Members on both sides of the aisle agree that Federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid should provide a means to care for and to protect our citizens--not become vehicles for the destruction or impairment of our citizens. The Declaration of Independence reads: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' It is Congress' responsibility to defend the foremost of our inalienable rights--that of life. In this spirit and understanding, I rise today to introduce with Senators Dorgan, Nickles, Ford, and others, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, a modest and a timely response to the threat that taxes paid by American citizens would be used to finance assisted suicide. What this bill simply says is that Federal tax dollars shall not be used to pay for and promote assisted suicide or euthanasia. We introduced such a bill in the 104th Congress, and have wide bipartisan support for this legislation, with 30 Members of the U.S. Senate as original cosponsors on the bill. This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of our Founding Fathers and the integrity of Federal programs that serve the elderly and the seriously ill, programs which were intended to support and enhance human health and life, not to promote the destruction of human life. Government's role in our culture should be to call us to our highest and best, to expand our capacity to take advantage of the opportunities of life, and to build our capacity for achievement. I do not believe that Government has a place in hastening Americans to their graves. Our court system is, however, on the brink of allowing Federal- taxpayer-assisted suicide funding. This bill is intended to preempt and to prevent proactively such a morally contemptible practice as taking tax money from one American and using it to assist in the suicide of another American. Let me be clear that this bill only affects Federal funding for actions whose direct purpose is to cause or to assist in causing suicide--actions that are clearly condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association and illegal in the vast majority of States. Again, this bill simply prohibits any Federal funding for medical actions that assist suicide. Some might ask why we need such a law. It is because two Federal courts of appeals recently contradicted the positions of 49 States when they found that there is a Federal constitutional ``right'' to physician-assisted suicide. These cases involved New York and Washington State laws which prohibit physician-assisted suicide. The State of Oregon recently passed Measure No. 16. That was the first law in the country that authorized the dispensing of lethal drugs to terminally ill patients to assist in suicide. Although a Federal court in Oregon struck down that law, the case has been to the ninth circuit, one of the appeals courts that has already signaled a strong indication that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. Oregon's Medicaid director and the chairman of the Oregon Health Services Commission have both said that in the event that the ninth circuit would clear the way for Oregon's law to take effect, the federally funded Medicaid Program in Oregon would begin to pay for assisted suicide with public funds in that State. According to the Oregon authorities, the procedure would be listed on Medicaid reimbursement forms under the grotesque euphemism of ``comfort care.'' Unless we pass the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, Oregon could soon be drawing down Federal funds through its Medicaid Program to help pay for assisted suicides. Neither Medicaid, nor Medicare, nor any other Federal health program has explicit statutory language to prohibit the use of Federal funds to dispense lethal drugs for suicide primarily because no one in the history of these programs ever thought that they would be used to end the lives of individuals. We have always focused in these programs on seeking to extend rather than end the lives of Americans. In fact, the Clinton administration's brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States opposing physician-assisted suicide pointed out that: The Department of Veterans Affairs, which operates 173 medical centers, 126 nursing homes, and 55 inpatient hospices, has a policy manual that . . . forbids ``the active hastening of the moment of death.'' ``The active hastening of the moment of death'' sounds a lot like assisted suicide to me. Such guidelines also apply to the VA's hospice program, the military services, the Indian Health Service, and the National Institutes of Health. Nonetheless, if the ninth circuit reinstates Oregon's Measure 16, Federal funds will be used for the so-called comfort care, also known as assisted suicide. I believe we would be derelict in our duty if we were to ignore this problem and allow a few officials in one State to decide that the taxpayers of the other 49 States must help subsidize a practice that they have never authorized and that millions of Americans find to be morally abhorrent. It is crystal clear that the American people do not want their tax dollars spent on assisting the suicide of individuals. Recently, a national Wirthlin poll showed that 87 percent of Americans oppose the use of public funds for this purpose. Even the voters of Oregon, who narrowly approved Measure 16 by a 51- to 49-percent margin, did not consider the question of public funding. The voters of two other west coast States, California and Washington, soundly defeated similar measures to authorize assisted suicide. Since November 1994, when Oregon passed its law, 15 other States have considered and rejected bills to legalize the practice. However, this bill does not talk about authorizing or prohibiting assisted suicide. It merely states that no Federal funds could be used to promote or assist suicide. Let me just say a few words about the way the legislation is crafted. It is very limited. It is very modest, and I think that provides the basis for its bipartisan support. It does not forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide, and it does not forbid using State funds for the practice. It merely prevents Federal funds and Federal programs from being drawn into promoting it. The bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue that the Supreme Court considered last month when it heard the cases of Washington versus Glucksberg and Vacco versus Quill. These are right- to-suicide cases, and the bill does not attempt to answer this complex question. Nor would this legislation be affected by what the Supreme Court decides on the issue. Congress would still have the right to prevent Federal funding of such a practice even if the practice itself had the status of a constitutional ``right.'' As the bill's rule of construction clearly provides, this legislation does not affect any other life issue that some might have strong feelings about. The bill does not affect abortion, or complex issues such as the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, even of nutrition or hydration. Nor does it affect the dispersing of large doses of morphine or other drugs to ease the pain of terminal illness, even when this may carry the risk of hastening death as a side-effect--a practice that is legally accepted in all 50 States, and ethically accepted by the medical profession and even by pro-life and religious organizations. This bill is focused exclusively on prohibiting Federal funding for assisting suicide. Finally, I am pleased to mention those organizations that have joined with us in endorsing this legislation. These include the American Medical Association, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Free Congress, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, and the Traditional Values Coalition. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support from the American Medical Association.

Mr. ASHCROFT. President Jefferson wrote in words that are now inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial here in Washington that the ``care and protection of human life, and not its destruction,'' are the only legitimate objectives of good government. Thomas Jefferson believed that our rights are God given and that life is an inalienable right. With this understanding and belief, I urge the Congress and the President to support this bill. It is a modest but necessary effort to uphold our basic principles by forbidding the Federal funding of assisted suicide. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his excellent work, his cooperation in this respect, and his emphasis on what this bill does and what it does not do. There is a narrow focus in this measure. We do not seek to preempt the ability of States to make decisions regarding their own laws, or individuals to make their own decisions. We are merely making reference to the fact that the Federal Government should not be financing assisted suicides. I thank him for his outstanding work and for his excellent effort in developing this legislation, to narrowly focus it and target it in such a way that makes it possible for us to work together. I commend him.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the document that emerged from the Philadelphia convention has become the longest lived national constitution in the world. It was the product of a sense of urgency, of mission, of common purpose. And years from now, after we have long since passed, it will endure, standing unchallenged by the varied crises of human affairs. The Philadelphia delegates crafted this document on what they believed to be fundamental principles: Majority rule, dual sovereignty, one man, one vote. The Framers also recognized, however, that a lasting government would have to be not only durable and stable, but flexible enough to evolve with the emerging Nation. For this reason, they included an article for amendment that would allow the document to be changed over time. Since 1787, more than 10,600 constitutional amendments have been introduced. Only 27 have been adopted. Many of the proposed amendments have bordered on the ridiculous. One called for the creation of four regional Presidents. Others have called for the legalization of dueling, or changing the Nation's name to the United States of the World. The amendment I introduce today, however, is neither ridiculous nor unimportant. In fact, I would suggest that is one of the defining issues which this Congress will face. For it cuts to the very heart of who we are as a party, as a polity, as a people. It is a term-limits constitutional amendment. If enacted, the resolution would limit Members of Congress to three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and two terms in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, term limits are a tried and tested reform that the American people have seen operate firsthand: For the President since 1951, for 41 Governors, for 20 State legislatures, and for hundreds of local officials nationwide. Indeed, this is at least one reason why congressional term limits enjoy such widespread support: Voters have witnessed their ameliorative effects and want them extended to the national legislature. Some will undoubtedly argue that the 1996 election and the notable increase in new Members weakens the case for term limits. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ninety-four percent of all the Members who sought reelection last year were returned to Washington. The turnover that did occur was largely the result of voluntary departures, not competitive elections. Why do reelection rates continue at all-time highs? Because incumbency is, and always has been, the single greatest perk in politics. Committee assignments translate into campaign contributions. Bills mean bucks. The simple fact remains, the average incumbent spends more of the taxpayers' money on franked mail than the average challenger spends on his entire campaign. Reapportionment's role in ensuring long-term incumbency must also be considered. Many State officials are acutely aware of the benefits derived from high reelection rates. Consequently, they manipulate districts in a way which maximizes the potential for incumbents to return to Washington. This is not only an argument for limited tenure, it is an argument for adopting House limits of less than 10 years. As with all good ideas, this reform has occasioned some controversy. Primarily, opposition has come from careerists in the Congress whose livelihood is at stake. These self-proclaimed keepers of the public faith worry aloud about the impact of lost legislative wisdom. And, in the cloakrooms and Capitol corridors, they whisper about ``protecting the people from themselves.'' Opponents seem to believe that only seasoned legislators in a professional Congress can effectively deal with the issues of the day. Mr. President, it is the height of arrogance and elitism to suggest that any one Senator is essential to our Government. The strength of American democracy is that the people are the source of Government's legitimacy. Because, as Alexander Hamilton aptly noted more than two centuries ago, ``Here, Sir, the people govern.'' These assertions also stand at odds with the great triumph of individualism that is America. For they are based on the flawed supposition that only a limited number of citizens are qualified to serve. Richard Henry Lee put it best. ``I would not urge the principle of rotation,'' said Lee, ``if I believed the consequence would be a uniformed Federal legislature; but I have no apprehension of this in this enlightened country.'' Indeed, no more than a cursory look at the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and Paine reveals the healthy respect they had for the average citizen. Mr. President, I share the Founders' belief that there is wisdom in the people. The resolution I bring before the body today is a commonsense reform that the citizenry undeniably wants, a remedy our Republic desperately needs, a reform whose time has come. Rotation in office has worked for the President, scores of Governors, and countless others across this great land. Let us extend its therapeutic effects to the Halls of the U.S. Congress. I beg this proposal's adoption.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the document that emerged from the Philadelphia convention has become the longest lived national constitution in the world. It was the product of a sense of urgency, of mission, of common purpose. And years from now, after we have long since passed, it will endure, standing unchallenged by the varied crises of human affairs. The Philadelphia delegates crafted this document on what they believed to be fundamental principles: Majority rule, dual sovereignty, one man, one vote. The Framers also recognized, however, that a lasting government would have to be not only durable and stable, but flexible enough to evolve with the emerging Nation. For this reason, they included an article for amendment that would allow the document to be changed over time. Since 1787, more than 10,600 constitutional amendments have been introduced. Only 27 have been adopted. Many of the proposed amendments have bordered on the ridiculous. One called for the creation of four regional Presidents. Others have called for the legalization of dueling, or changing the Nation's name to the United States of the World. The amendment I introduce today, however, is neither ridiculous nor unimportant. In fact, I would suggest that is one of the defining issues which this Congress will face. For it cuts to the very heart of who we are as a party, as a polity, as a people. It is a term-limits constitutional amendment. If enacted, the resolution would limit Members of Congress to three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and two terms in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, term limits are a tried and tested reform that the American people have seen operate firsthand: For the President since 1951, for 41 Governors, for 20 State legislatures, and for hundreds of local officials nationwide. Indeed, this is at least one reason why congressional term limits enjoy such widespread support: Voters have witnessed their ameliorative effects and want them extended to the national legislature. Some will undoubtedly argue that the 1996 election and the notable increase in new Members weakens the case for term limits. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ninety-four percent of all the Members who sought reelection last year were returned to Washington. The turnover that did occur was largely the result of voluntary departures, not competitive elections. Why do reelection rates continue at all-time highs? Because incumbency is, and always has been, the single greatest perk in politics. Committee assignments translate into campaign contributions. Bills mean bucks. The simple fact remains, the average incumbent spends more of the taxpayers' money on franked mail than the average challenger spends on his entire campaign. Reapportionment's role in ensuring long-term incumbency must also be considered. Many State officials are acutely aware of the benefits derived from high reelection rates. Consequently, they manipulate districts in a way which maximizes the potential for incumbents to return to Washington. This is not only an argument for limited tenure, it is an argument for adopting House limits of less than 10 years. As with all good ideas, this reform has occasioned some controversy. Primarily, opposition has come from careerists in the Congress whose livelihood is at stake. These self-proclaimed keepers of the public faith worry aloud about the impact of lost legislative wisdom. And, in the cloakrooms and Capitol corridors, they whisper about ``protecting the people from themselves.'' Opponents seem to believe that only seasoned legislators in a professional Congress can effectively deal with the issues of the day. Mr. President, it is the height of arrogance and elitism to suggest that any one Senator is essential to our Government. The strength of American democracy is that the people are the source of Government's legitimacy. Because, as Alexander Hamilton aptly noted more than two centuries ago, ``Here, Sir, the people govern.'' These assertions also stand at odds with the great triumph of individualism that is America. For they are based on the flawed supposition that only a limited number of citizens are qualified to serve. Richard Henry Lee put it best. ``I would not urge the principle of rotation,'' said Lee, ``if I believed the consequence would be a uniformed Federal legislature; but I have no apprehension of this in this enlightened country.'' Indeed, no more than a cursory look at the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and Paine reveals the healthy respect they had for the average citizen. Mr. President, I share the Founders' belief that there is wisdom in the people. The resolution I bring before the body today is a commonsense reform that the citizenry undeniably wants, a remedy our Republic desperately needs, a reform whose time has come. Rotation in office has worked for the President, scores of Governors, and countless others across this great land. Let us extend its therapeutic effects to the Halls of the U.S. Congress. I beg this proposal's adoption.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise in support of my colleague from Vermont in his introduction of the Team Work for Employees And Management Act. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership in helping American workers develop the capacity to be competitive, to be productive, and to maintain our standard of excellence throughout the world. The Team Act, which passed both the Senate and the House during the 104th Congress, but was vetoed by President Clinton, is vital to the survivability and strength of our Nation's economy. Our Nation's strength is a result of recognizing the importance of the human resource in the equation. You simply cannot be competitive without tapping every part of the resource that you have. When we think of the NCAA basketball tournament next month, it is unthinkable that we would send teams into competition and forbid the coaches to talk to the players. What nonsense that would be. It is fundamental recognition of the fact that the people on the court will have a different perspective than the people off the court. The people on the field will have an awareness of how things are going that is special, different, unique, and of value. The same is true in industry. No matter how hard a compassionate manager tried to observe the process from outside, no matter how well the engineer from the design room tries to structure the environment for productivity, the person who actually is on the floor is going to have the ability to say, ``This doesn't work here. It may look good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.'' I think that is what the TEAM Act is all about. It is about understanding and recognizing the tremendous resource that workers are, that they can be to the competitive position of this country by outproducing, outworking, outthinking, outsmarting, and out- cooperating workers anyplace else in the world. Most Americans would believe, and it is because we are commonsense people, that it is OK for employees and employers to talk. If you would have listened to the debate in this Chamber, you would have heard from those on the other side of the aisle, ``Why, it's all right, it's all OK, it's perfectly legal right now. We don't need this.'' When opponents of the TEAM Act say it is perfectly legal now, we do not need this law, it confounds me. Let me read from a list of things that have been ruled inappropriate for nonunion employers to talk to their nonunion employees on, so the American people have an understanding of what the law is and whether it needs to be changed. If you discuss the extension of the employees' lunch breaks by 15 minutes, that is illegal, from the case of Sertafilm and Atlas Microfilming; the length of the workday, to discuss how long each workday is going to be, that is illegal, from Weston & Booker Co. A decrease in rest breaks from 15 to 10 minutes, that is illegal to talk about with workers. What paid holidays you have--the Singer Manufacturing case held that was illegal to talk about. The extension of store hours during wheat harvest season--the Dillon's company case said you cannot talk with workers about that to get their input. Workers know what kind of break they need. Workers know what kind of workday they would like to work. I know of one plant in my home State where workers decided they wanted to work 4 days of 10 hours a day instead of 5 days of 8 hours a day and have 3-day weekends every week. Why would Government stand between workers and manufacturers, between managers and employees or their associates to say you cannot discuss those things, and yet that is what the law is for 8 out of 9 American workers, because 8 out of 9 American workers are nonunion workers. The National Labor Relations Act governs election of unions and collective bargaining. Section 8(a)(2) was passed in 1935 to prohibit the establishment of sham company unions, a tactic commonly used by employers to defeat union organizing. These organizations pretended to engage in collective bargaining, but followed management's dictates and typically were run by officers handpicked by management. Companies then pretended to enter into collective-bargaining agreements with these sham organizations so that when a union attempted to organize the workers, the companies could hide behind the exclusive representation and contract bar tenets of the law. Vigorous enforcement of section 8(a)(2) resulted in the demise of the company unions by the early 1950's. While sham unions should continue to be prohibited under our labor laws--and would remain so under the TEAM Act--the broad prohibition that remains in effect today prevents the types of legitimate cooperative working relationships that encourage worker participation and decisionmaking. Let me give you an example. When I was Governor of the State of Missouri, I had the opportunity to work with companies. Like I do today, I would go and work on the assembly line. I would go and work with people to learn about their jobs and talk to them about their concerns. One of the companies that was hauled into the justice system of the Labor Department for cooperating with its employees was a company called EFCO Corp. It was a small company in Missouri, having approximately 60 jobs. Now it has over 1,000 jobs. Much of its capacity was to increase its on-time deliveries, which went from the low seventies up into the high nineties, and which allowed workers to start working 4 days a week instead of 5 days a week, get their 40 hours in 4 days and have long weekends, spend more time with their kids, accommodate the demands of their families. It all came from these programs. What was most distressing was that when EFCO wanted to be involved, it was said to have dominated its discussion groups or teams because they provided employees with pencils and pens and allowed them to have access to the financial records of the company. That was what the NLRB said was a violation. You would say this company is bending over backward. It opens up the books to the workers and says: How can we do better for and how can we, as a team, do better, how can we as a company have the kind of performance and productivity that will recommend us to the world? And indeed they are now a world-class company. But because they provided the pens and pencils and they allowed the workers to have access to the company's financial records, the NLRB filed charges against the company. This is not the kind of thing that recommends America for leadership. It is the kind of thing that takes correction. Opponents say if you talk about those things, the workers will think you have union when you don't. It will be a sham union. Frankly, I do not underestimate the American worker that severely. Over the Christmas break I went to and worked in about five or six places in Missouri, actually on the job side-by-side with people. I never met a single worker who did not know whether he or she was in a union. They know. Workers know whether union dues are being deducted. The know whether they are in a separate organization. It is not hard. This is not above the capacity of the American worker. The idea somehow that if we allow managers to talk to employees, employees will be tricked into thinking they have a union when they do not have a union is ludicrous. It underestimates the intelligence of the American work force. A second objective from the other side is, ``Well, maybe if we allow people to talk, they will be just talking to certain employees who only have limited views, and they will not reflect the views of employees generally.'' There is a safeguard. If there is an unfair system established where workers and employers are communicating with each other and it is working against the interests of the workers, it is easy. Workers have every right to unionize. They can form a labor union. They can petition for a labor union. They can ask that unions come in if they think it is unfair. There is a structural guarantee of competition. If nonunion systems are not working well for employees, if these things are likely to be so distorted or so unfair, nothing in this law, nothing in this proposal, in any way derogates, undermines, erodes, or otherwise lessens the right of a worker to petition for an election to organize or unionize a plant. There are about 30,000 employers that would like to have such employee-involvement programs. Why is it they would like to have such programs? Because they have seen that when we work together we succeed. Strange to me, that is basically a quote from President Clinton's 1996 State of the Union Address. He said, and I agree, ``When companies and workers work as a team, they do better, and so does America.'' The real truth of the matter is understood in the hearts and minds of everyone who has every worked on a team, knowing that when you work together, you do better than when you work at odds with each other. The ability of union workers to collaborate with employers is well ensconced. It is fought for by the unions and protected by the employers, recognized as a great benefit. But why should we limit that great benefit to 11 or 12 percent of our society, to the 1 out of 9 workers in America that are in unions? Why not extend this benefit to all workers in America saying that it is entirely appropriate for nonunion workers, as well as union workers, to be involved in collaborating and cooperating, in providing their good judgment of how best to improve the situation for workers and to improve the productivity and profitability of the business? No. I do not think we would send our teams to the NCAA tournament forbidding the players to talk to the coaches. We have too much sense to do that. No, I do not think that union companies are going to stop having team discussions between employees and the company owners and managers. They have too much sense to do that. And, no, I do not think that this Government should stand between the owners of corporations and their managers and the employees who work hard and want to succeed and want to be productive and keep them from talking to each other, because I believe the American people have too much sense to do that. I urge my colleagues to extend this benefit which now inures to the benefit of 1 out of 9 workers in America to the rest of the working population. Let us give everyone an opportunity to contribute to a winning effort, to succeed. That will maintain America's position as the most productive and most profitable and most rewarding place, not just for companies, but for citizens, not just for institutions, but for individuals. It is, in fact, a reason that America continues to draw people from around the globe. It is the fact that we have recognized the worth and value of individuals. And for us to deny their value in a commercial setting would be a substantial error which we must not make.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Wilford and Jerry Acker of Weaubleau, MO who on May 10, 1997, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Wilford and Jerry's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise in support of my colleague from Vermont in his introduction of the Team Work for Employees And Management Act. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership in helping American workers develop the capacity to be competitive, to be productive, and to maintain our standard of excellence throughout the world. The Team Act, which passed both the Senate and the House during the 104th Congress, but was vetoed by President Clinton, is vital to the survivability and strength of our Nation's economy. Our Nation's strength is a result of recognizing the importance of the human resource in the equation. You simply cannot be competitive without tapping every part of the resource that you have. When we think of the NCAA basketball tournament next month, it is unthinkable that we would send teams into competition and forbid the coaches to talk to the players. What nonsense that would be. It is fundamental recognition of the fact that the people on the court will have a different perspective than the people off the court. The people on the field will have an awareness of how things are going that is special, different, unique, and of value. The same is true in industry. No matter how hard a compassionate manager tried to observe the process from outside, no matter how well the engineer from the design room tries to structure the environment for productivity, the person who actually is on the floor is going to have the ability to say, ``This doesn't work here. It may look good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.'' I think that is what the TEAM Act is all about. It is about understanding and recognizing the tremendous resource that workers are, that they can be to the competitive position of this country by outproducing, outworking, outthinking, outsmarting, and out- cooperating workers anyplace else in the world. Most Americans would believe, and it is because we are commonsense people, that it is OK for employees and employers to talk. If you would have listened to the debate in this Chamber, you would have heard from those on the other side of the aisle, ``Why, it's all right, it's all OK, it's perfectly legal right now. We don't need this.'' When opponents of the TEAM Act say it is perfectly legal now, we do not need this law, it confounds me. Let me read from a list of things that have been ruled inappropriate for nonunion employers to talk to their nonunion employees on, so the American people have an understanding of what the law is and whether it needs to be changed. If you discuss the extension of the employees' lunch breaks by 15 minutes, that is illegal, from the case of Sertafilm and Atlas Microfilming; the length of the workday, to discuss how long each workday is going to be, that is illegal, from Weston & Booker Co. A decrease in rest breaks from 15 to 10 minutes, that is illegal to talk about with workers. What paid holidays you have--the Singer Manufacturing case held that was illegal to talk about. The extension of store hours during wheat harvest season--the Dillon's company case said you cannot talk with workers about that to get their input. Workers know what kind of break they need. Workers know what kind of workday they would like to work. I know of one plant in my home State where workers decided they wanted to work 4 days of 10 hours a day instead of 5 days of 8 hours a day and have 3-day weekends every week. Why would Government stand between workers and manufacturers, between managers and employees or their associates to say you cannot discuss those things, and yet that is what the law is for 8 out of 9 American workers, because 8 out of 9 American workers are nonunion workers. The National Labor Relations Act governs election of unions and collective bargaining. Section 8(a)(2) was passed in 1935 to prohibit the establishment of sham company unions, a tactic commonly used by employers to defeat union organizing. These organizations pretended to engage in collective bargaining, but followed management's dictates and typically were run by officers handpicked by management. Companies then pretended to enter into collective-bargaining agreements with these sham organizations so that when a union attempted to organize the workers, the companies could hide behind the exclusive representation and contract bar tenets of the law. Vigorous enforcement of section 8(a)(2) resulted in the demise of the company unions by the early 1950's. While sham unions should continue to be prohibited under our labor laws--and would remain so under the TEAM Act--the broad prohibition that remains in effect today prevents the types of legitimate cooperative working relationships that encourage worker participation and decisionmaking. Let me give you an example. When I was Governor of the State of Missouri, I had the opportunity to work with companies. Like I do today, I would go and work on the assembly line. I would go and work with people to learn about their jobs and talk to them about their concerns. One of the companies that was hauled into the justice system of the Labor Department for cooperating with its employees was a company called EFCO Corp. It was a small company in Missouri, having approximately 60 jobs. Now it has over 1,000 jobs. Much of its capacity was to increase its on-time deliveries, which went from the low seventies up into the high nineties, and which allowed workers to start working 4 days a week instead of 5 days a week, get their 40 hours in 4 days and have long weekends, spend more time with their kids, accommodate the demands of their families. It all came from these programs. What was most distressing was that when EFCO wanted to be involved, it was said to have dominated its discussion groups or teams because they provided employees with pencils and pens and allowed them to have access to the financial records of the company. That was what the NLRB said was a violation. You would say this company is bending over backward. It opens up the books to the workers and says: How can we do better for and how can we, as a team, do better, how can we as a company have the kind of performance and productivity that will recommend us to the world? And indeed they are now a world-class company. But because they provided the pens and pencils and they allowed the workers to have access to the company's financial records, the NLRB filed charges against the company. This is not the kind of thing that recommends America for leadership. It is the kind of thing that takes correction. Opponents say if you talk about those things, the workers will think you have union when you don't. It will be a sham union. Frankly, I do not underestimate the American worker that severely. Over the Christmas break I went to and worked in about five or six places in Missouri, actually on the job side-by-side with people. I never met a single worker who did not know whether he or she was in a union. They know. Workers know whether union dues are being deducted. The know whether they are in a separate organization. It is not hard. This is not above the capacity of the American worker. The idea somehow that if we allow managers to talk to employees, employees will be tricked into thinking they have a union when they do not have a union is ludicrous. It underestimates the intelligence of the American work force. A second objective from the other side is, ``Well, maybe if we allow people to talk, they will be just talking to certain employees who only have limited views, and they will not reflect the views of employees generally.'' There is a safeguard. If there is an unfair system established where workers and employers are communicating with each other and it is working against the interests of the workers, it is easy. Workers have every right to unionize. They can form a labor union. They can petition for a labor union. They can ask that unions come in if they think it is unfair. There is a structural guarantee of competition. If nonunion systems are not working well for employees, if these things are likely to be so distorted or so unfair, nothing in this law, nothing in this proposal, in any way derogates, undermines, erodes, or otherwise lessens the right of a worker to petition for an election to organize or unionize a plant. There are about 30,000 employers that would like to have such employee-involvement programs. Why is it they would like to have such programs? Because they have seen that when we work together we succeed. Strange to me, that is basically a quote from President Clinton's 1996 State of the Union Address. He said, and I agree, ``When companies and workers work as a team, they do better, and so does America.'' The real truth of the matter is understood in the hearts and minds of everyone who has every worked on a team, knowing that when you work together, you do better than when you work at odds with each other. The ability of union workers to collaborate with employers is well ensconced. It is fought for by the unions and protected by the employers, recognized as a great benefit. But why should we limit that great benefit to 11 or 12 percent of our society, to the 1 out of 9 workers in America that are in unions? Why not extend this benefit to all workers in America saying that it is entirely appropriate for nonunion workers, as well as union workers, to be involved in collaborating and cooperating, in providing their good judgment of how best to improve the situation for workers and to improve the productivity and profitability of the business? No. I do not think we would send our teams to the NCAA tournament forbidding the players to talk to the coaches. We have too much sense to do that. No, I do not think that union companies are going to stop having team discussions between employees and the company owners and managers. They have too much sense to do that. And, no, I do not think that this Government should stand between the owners of corporations and their managers and the employees who work hard and want to succeed and want to be productive and keep them from talking to each other, because I believe the American people have too much sense to do that. I urge my colleagues to extend this benefit which now inures to the benefit of 1 out of 9 workers in America to the rest of the working population. Let us give everyone an opportunity to contribute to a winning effort, to succeed. That will maintain America's position as the most productive and most profitable and most rewarding place, not just for companies, but for citizens, not just for institutions, but for individuals. It is, in fact, a reason that America continues to draw people from around the globe. It is the fact that we have recognized the worth and value of individuals. And for us to deny their value in a commercial setting would be a substantial error which we must not make.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, during this debate, we have heard frequently that there is not a need to amend the Constitution. There is authority, we are told, for Congress to do what is right if we simply exercise greater fiscal discipline. No one in this Chamber has ever argued that there is inadequate authority for balancing the budget. But these unbalanced budgets are a testimony which is undeniable, not to the absence of authority, but to the absence of discipline. It is time that we, who have experienced a collective loss of will, provide a structure in which we cannot allow this abuse of the future of the United States to continue. The balanced budget amendment is real reform, and it will be felt. I had the privilege of serving my State as Governor. I have seen what happens when there is a framework and structure which demands discipline. I know that for 8 years we balanced our budgets. As a matter of fact, we aimed for a little surplus so we could create a rainy day fund so that when times got tough, we could simply call upon those resources that we had developed when times were good. And it was not only an appropriate way to do business because it was moral and because it didn't steal from the next generation. It was an appropriate way to do business because it was very healthy for the State economically. And over and over again our State was rated at the very top with the highest bond rating--the highest financial rating of any State in the country because it was understood that we had this concern about the integrity of our fiscal affairs. So, Mr. President, let me just say a balanced budget amendment is real reform. It will reestablish the historical responsibilities observed in this country that we could have balanced budgets, except in times of war, which is something that should be assumed. But it cannot be assumed and must be institutionalized. It is also a political reform that will be felt first and foremost in the cold corridors of power here on the Potomac. Most importantly, it will be felt by the American people who will have their right to self- governance restored. Over two centuries ago Edmund Burke reminded members of the British House of Commons of a fundamental principle. Burke said: ``The people must possess the power of granting their own money or no shadow of liberty can subsist.'' The truth of the matter is that, if the people do not have power over their own purse strings and if we can extend our Republic of Government by borrowing or stealing from the next generation, we indeed will have seriously eroded the liberty which we are entitled to in this country. We need to safeguard those liberties which were first inscribed in the Magna Carta in 1215 preserved by the blood of patriots on continents around the world. We must return the power of the purse to the people. We must stop stealing from our children. We must stop stealing by deceit. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution not only has to do with economics and the economy, and not only has to do with prosperity. It is a problem about integrity, and it is a challenge relating to liberty. And we must embrace it and offer it to the people of the United States for ratification. Exhibit 1 letter from thomas jefferson to james madison, paris September 6, 1789 Dear Sir: I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develop a little more than is practicable in the hurry of * * * of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, `that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living': that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it's lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decendent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, be natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.--To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on, and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for 33: at 23. for 32. and at 54. for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs.--But a material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual, and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of the whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculties of paying. What is true of a generation all arriving to self- government on the same day, and dying all on the same day, is true of those in a constant course of decay and renewal, with this only difference. A generation coming in and going out entire, as in the first case, would have a right in the 1st. year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33. years, in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th. for 14. in the 30th for 4. whereas generations, changing daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected by the circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the country of the contractors. Take, for in stance, the table of M. de Buffon wherein he states 23,994 deaths, and the ages at which they happened. Suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born every year, and live to the ages stated in this table. The conditions of that society will be as follows 1st. It will consist constantly of 617,703 persons of all ages. 2ly. Of those living at any one instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. 3dly. 10,675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. 4ly. It will constantly have 348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly. And the half of those of 21. years and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say 19. years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt. To render this conclusion palpable by example, suppose that Louis XIV. and XV. has contracted debts in the name of the French nation to the amount of 10,000 milliards of livres, and that the whole has been contracted in Genoa. The interest of this sum would be 500. milliards, which is said to be the whole rent roll or nett proceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in which nature produced them, and ceded it to the Genoese creditors? No. They have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature. They then and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors. Again suppose Louis XV, and his cotemporary generation had said to the money-lenders of Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of 19 years you shall then for ever after receive an annual interest of 12\5/8\ per cent.\1\ The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the living, eaten, drank, and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labour to replace their dissipations? Not at all. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 100, at a compound interest of 5. per cent, makes at the end of 19. years, an aggregate of principal and interest of 252-14, the interest of which is 12 12-12s-7d which is nearly 12\5/8\ per cent on the first capital of 100. . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing habitually in private life that he who succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his ancestor or testator: without considering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral; flowing from the will of the society, which has found it convenient to appropriate lands, become vacant by the death of their occupant, on the condition of a paiment of his debts: but that between society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another. The interest of the national debt of France being in fact but a two thousandth part of it's rent roll, the paiment of it is practicable enough: and so becomes a question merely of honor, or of expediency. But with respect to future debts, would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare, in the constitution they are forming, that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself, can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years? And that all future contracts will be deemed void as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19 years from their date? This would put the lenders, and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing within it's natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money-lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding. On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors [are] extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal. This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application and consequences, in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions. Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given antiently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity? Whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue ecclesiastical and feudal? It goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations; to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts and sciences; with a long train of et ceteras: and it renders the question of reimbursement a question of generosity and not of right. In all these cases, the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no longer; and the present holders, even where they, or their ancestors, have purchased, are in the case of bona fide purchasers of what the seller had no right to convey. Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir, and particularly as to the power of contracting debts; and develope it with that perspicuity and cogent logic so peculiarly yours. Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity of producing it to public consideration, of forcing it into discussion. At first blush it may be rallied, as a theoretical speculation: but examination will prove it to be solid and salutary. It would furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue; and it will exclude at the threshold of our new government the contagious and ruinous errors of this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means, not sanctioned by nature, for binding in chains their fellow men. We have already given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay. I should be pleased to see this second obstacle held our by us also in the first instance. No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which may not be paid with ease, principal and interest, within the time of our own lives.--Establish the principle also in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19, instead of 14, years. Besides familiarising us to this term, it will be an instance the more of our taking reason for our guide, instead of English precedent, the habit of which fetters us with all the political heresies of a nation equally remarkeable for it's early excitement from some errors, and long slumbering under others. I write you no news, because, when an occasion occurs, I shall write a separate letter for that, I am always with great & sincere esteem, dear Sir Your affectionate friend & servt.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank my colleague from the State of Connecticut. Mr. President, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some remarks about the balanced budget amendment. It is my understanding the minority leader may come to the floor to speak, and if he does I am happy to interrupt my remarks to provide him an opportunity to make whatever remarks he plans to make. Mr. President, when we discuss the balanced budget amendment, we are usually talking about the impact of runaway spending on our economy or on our future. These are fundamental considerations, but I think there is another consideration that we must not lose sight of, and that is, perhaps, more fundamental and more profound than the economic implications of the balanced budget. A protracted deficit spending empowers the central Government with the means to undermine our basic liberties. What I really mean to say is that unlimited spending by Government promotes unlimited Government, and unlimited Government means limited freedom. There is a relationship between the size of Government and the number of its prerogatives and the size of individuals and the number of their prerogatives. For how we tax and spend, really, in fact, determines whether we are prosperous or poor, free or enslaved, good or evil. I believe if we want to be free, we have always to be careful about the size of Government. Now, the acknowledgment that we can control Government by controlling its power of the purse is not new. From the very beginnings of this Republic there has been a clear understanding that if you could control the purse, if you could limit spending, you could limit the encroachment of Government upon the freedom of individuals. Money is and money has always been the source of Government's most basic power. History bears testament to this truth. The Magna Carta, which was signed grudgingly by King John a few centuries ago--I might add, no relation, King John, but the name is still in current use--prescribed that the monarchy could not impose taxes, and King John grudgingly signed this, the monarchy could not impose taxes without the consent of the Great Council. Charles I was executed because he tried to spend money without the consent of the Commons. And our own Declaration of Independence talks of injuries and usurpations, not the least of which was George III's imposition of taxes without representation, taxes without the consent or participation in the decisionmaking by colonial residents. Mr. President, deficit spending has wrested power from the people. It has taken power from the next generation and brought it to this generation, the power to decide how the resources of our own children will be spent. It has deposited this power in the Halls of Congress. We are not only taking the freedom of this generation when we spend in deficit, we are taking the freedom of the next generation, so that we have a compound problem here. The extent and reach of Government encroaches upon the capacity of individuals to live freely, not only in the present time but because we are funding this overreaching of Government with deficit spending, it encroaches upon the freedom of the next generation. This is an inversion of the will of the Framers of the Constitution. It is an invasion of the social contract in which our forefathers developed this country. It takes the power from the people and puts it in the hands of the Congress. And really what Congress' enterprise ought to be is empowering people. It is time to return to the people the ability to control their own lives, their future and their destiny and to begin to assure the next generation that we will not have exercised their prerogatives, we will not have made their choices about how to spend their resources, but that we will, indeed, protect some of that prerogative which they rightfully have which they ought to enjoy. Another way of saying this is that it is simply immoral to tax unborn generations of Americans in anticipation of their existence in order to satisfy our undisciplined consumption that is a result of deficit spending. Mr. President, Congress today does not have to vote to raise more revenue in order to spend more money. We have gone through a transition from tax and spend, which is an arguable proposition, to borrow and spend, which is certainly a very questionable proposition. We now are in a category of steal and spend, because borrowing without the intention or capacity to pay back by those who are doing the borrowing is something that is categorized in the law as something far different from borrowing. People who go to borrow without the intention to pay back are stealing. Most State statutes call it stealing by deceit. When we in this generation borrow without the intention or capacity to repay those moneys which we have borrowed, we, in fact, are stealing from the next generation. We cannot have their consent to take their resources because they do not exist yet. We are taking resources from our children and grandchildren at a time before they are even born. We are borrowing without the intention to pay back. We have gone from tax and spend to borrow and spend, and I daresay, now we find ourselves in the moral reprobate position of stealing from the next generation to spend. I spent some time as attorney general of my State. I had the privilege of serving the people of Missouri for 8 years as attorney general. It is the attorney general's responsibility to uphold the convictions of individuals who have violated the law. Among those are people who abuse children. I think child abuse is reprehensible. It is beyond my comprehension how someone would abuse a child, let alone his or her own child. But most of the people who abuse children would not think of stealing from children, or stealing from their own children. I find it to be abhorrent and immoral, and it is very unwise that we would take from our own children the capacity that they ought to have to be free, and that we would somehow wrest from them the decisionmaking capacity of free citizens in the next generation to decide how to deploy the resources that they generate. We would have already made the decisions, we would already have consumed the benefits, and we would send to them nothing more nor less than the bill--the debt to be paid. We owe our children so much more than that. Tax and spend was bad; borrow and spend was worse. When we got to a situation where we could not repay that which we had borrowed, it became stealing by deceit, and steal and spend is morally reprehensible and must be curtailed, it must be stopped. The ability to take resources of the next generation is unique to the Congress. No father can create debts which are visited upon his or her son or daughter. No mother can create a debt that can be visited upon her son or daughter. The law simply does not allow the debts of a parent to be imposed upon a child. Only in one universe can this happen, and it can only happen when the people of this country, through their Congress, create a debt which will be visited on those who are yet unborn, will be used as a set-off to garnishee the wages that are yet unearned. It's time that we stop. No family in America finds its children encumbered by the debts of parents. The American people are fed up with a Congress that spends these yet unearned wages of the next generation, and rightly so. It is more than economics; it is a matter of freedom. Second it is more than freedom; it is a matter of integrity. Mr. President, deficit spending is not only a threat to our posterity and our children's future, it is a method by which Washington's elite circumvent the public, the law, and the Constitution. When the people express the belief that Government is out of control, they are correct. For too long, this body has satisfied the appetites of narrow interests at the public's expense. Where is the accountability to taxpayers? Where is the will to do that which is right? Mr. President, we have tried time and time again to deal with this problem of recurring chronic debt. In terms of the medical profession, this is not an acute problem that lasts momentarily and then is gone, this is a chronic problem. These copies of out-of-balance budgets for the United States, year after year--I believe there are only 28 years stacked here. Over the last 60 years, you can more than double, perhaps triple, the volume represented by these out-of-balance budgets. They represent the absence of our capacity to discipline ourselves to stop spending someone else's money, to stop borrowing someone else's money, to stop stealing by deceit the resources of the next generation. In 1985, we tried something. It was a noble endeavor. To be commended are Senators Gramm, former Senator Rudman, and Senator Hollings in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. Then again we didn't have the will to carry through, and we changed the law so we could change the rules because we could not change our habits. We put Gramm-Rudman II in place in 1987. Then we changed the law and we changed the rules because we could not change our habits and broke that agreement. When the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 went into effect, again, we found ourselves changing the law and the rules because we could not break our habit. It becomes apparent to me that we need to do more than just have laws and rules, because we never have been able, in the face of our bad habit, to maintain our commitment to the rules or to the laws. We have simply changed the law and broken the rules because we could not break the habit. We need systemic change, something that goes to the very heart of us, that forbids this insistent expropriation, taking away from the next generation. It is simply that we need to put into the Constitution an immutable, unchangeable document, a kind of capacity to provide the discipline we have lacked and lacked consistently. I think we need to summon the discipline to restrain Government. It is obvious that Republican and Democrat Congresses have not had it. Republican and Democrat Presidents have not had it. It is time for us to provide a backbone implant, if you will, for the Congress of the United States to place in the Constitution of the United States this discipline. While one Senate cannot bind the next Senate, and hasn't because we have changed the laws and changed the rules because we could not break the habit, our Constitution can provide that discipline. Persons born in 1900 paid, roughly, 24 percent of their income in Federal and local net taxes. Persons born in 1970 will pay about 34 percent of their income in net taxes. If the policies that we have in place now remain, persons born in 1994 and thereafter will find themselves, over the course of their lifetimes, paying a net tax rate of about 84 percent. It is a trend which cannot continue. It is taxation without representation. It is an expropriation of the freedom and opportunity of the next generation. It is immoral, it is obscene, and it must end. As Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to James Madison in 1789: The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another * * * is a question of such consequence as not only to merit discussion, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. We must place it among the fundamental principles of our Government by enshrining the balanced budget amendment in our Constitution. Now, there is some quibbling about whether those who founded this great Nation would have wanted the balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. I must say to you that there were certain presumptions that surrounded most individuals who assembled to create the finest document ever written by human hand--the U.S. Constitution. One presumption was the presumption of integrity and the presumption of responsibility that the Founders expected of those in Government. Tragically, that presumption is unwarranted as it relates to the Congress today. I believe, absent their ability to rely upon the integrity and determination of the Congress, they would gladly have placed in the Constitution a framework which would have required such responsibility. Mr. President, I send to the desk for inclusion into the Record the letter of Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, written in Paris on September 6, 1789. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, during her confirmation hearing Ambassador Albright stated that ``we are not the world's policeman, nor, . . . are we running a charity or a fire department.'' However, she failed to recognize that the combination of her so-called ``assertive multilateralism'' and a ``do-ability doctrine''--whereby the United States acts ``in the places where our addition of action will, in fact, be the critical difference''--places the United States, as a practical matter in the position of being the world's policeman, of running a charity or a fire department. For the past 4 years, the pursuit of the United States' national interests has been obscured by an overriding reliance on multilateral action. The administration's embrace of `assertive multilateralism' has resulted in both the abdication of our responsibilities and the misguided projection of our power. For example, instead of applying the Reagan Doctrine to Bosnia by equipping and training the Bosnian forces in spite of our allies' objections, the Clinton administration subcontracted our role of arming the Bosnians to a terrorist regime in Iran, allowing fundamentalists to gain a foothold in the heart of Europe and thus unnecessarily endangering the lives of U.S. troops. In contrast, the administration's attempt at nation building in Somalia sacrificed the lives of 19 brave Rangers without regard to whether such action advanced our vital national interests. When this administration acts according to the exigencies of the moment instead of according to an underlying philosophy, the country lurches from paralysis to mission creep without regard to the national interest. Recently, there has been discussion of the possibility of reworking our entire military force structure--which is presently based on the capacity to fight two simultaneous major regional conflicts--in order to enable us to commit U.S. troops to an ever-growing number of multilateral peacekeeping missions. I am concerned that we may sacrifice our vital national security interests in order to be able to participate in peripheral endeavors. We should not be shortsighted. We should not lose sight of what we must do in order to accomplish what we can do. Our military should be used to protect our national security interests, not provide peacekeeping in areas without strategic significance. We need to continue to very closely monitor the foreign policy of the Clinton administration in terms of the national security interests of the United States. We must be vigilant about the deployment of U.S. troops around the world, including deployments that might include an attempt to place U.S. troops under the command of individuals who are not U.S. citizens and who do not have the kind of values to which we are committed. Mr. President, in this era of hegemonic stability, with the proliferation of fissile materials and missile delivery systems to rogue nations we must be constantly vigilant to security threats. We must ensure that adherence to Russia's narrow and one-sided interpretation of the ABM Treaty does not jeopardize the safety of the American people. Russia should not have veto power over developing a defensive system to protect the American people from missile attack. Ambassador Albright supports the administration's goal to develop a theater missile defense system that will protect our allies and our troops abroad--but not to develop a system to protect our own territory and citizens at home in the near term. I find this position to be untenable. Mr. President, we must not only protect the physical security of the United States and the American people. We must also safeguard our sovereignty--our State and local laws and customs from international review. I am troubled by Ambassador Albright's assertion that ``there is no such thing anymore as just a purely domestic issue or a purely foreign issue.'' She says there are only ``intermestic'' issues, meaning international and domestic issues combined. I think there are some issues of sovereignty that need to be reserved directly and appropriately, not only to the purview of our country, but to its citizens--to individuals and to families. I am concerned about her support of international treaties which could infringe upon the parental and religious rights Americans now enjoy. I am concerned that we closely monitor the extent to which the United States from time to time by treaty cedes the sovereignty of the American people to international organizations. Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State-designate, for instance, signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Britain, which has ratified the treaty, is now being called on the carpet because they allow moderate corporal punishment of children by parents. I simply do not think we need to look to the United Nations or international organizations to tell us whether moderate spanking of children is allowed in the United States. Inasmuch as she was an individual who signed the treaty on behalf of the United States, I think it behooves us, given her commitment to the so-called ``intermestic'' nature of all issues, that we ask her to be especially careful about the sovereignty of the United States and the prerogatives of individuals in specific States. Ambassador Albright stated that ``the promotion and protection of international human rights may require that domestic state and local policies in certain areas be open to international scrutiny. We have no reason to fear it.'' I would suggest that any threat to our sovereignty, any threat to our State and local laws, any threat to the sanctity of the family, is a reason to be vigilant. In order to safeguard the national interest, we must reorganize our foreign policy apparatus. This Nation is still saddled with an unwieldy cold war foreign policy bureaucracy in which many of the functions of AID, ACDA, and USIA could be better handled by the State Department. I was hoping that Ambassador Albright would come forward in support of this effort, as did Secretary of State Christopher--however fleetingly. The American people not only want our Government to reflect their wishes abroad, but they want it to do so coherently, concisely, and clearly. If we have a single voice in foreign policy representing the administration, be it Republican or Democrat, that single voice is most likely to get the job done, rather than the cacophony of voices from competing fiefdoms which undercut the authority of the Secretary of State. For example, currently there is a ``good-cop, bad-cop'' approach to foreign policy, whereby the entities who hand out U.S. foreign aid maintain good relations with client nations, while the Department of State essentially holds the line in protecting U.S. interests. We should not be handing out foreign aid to a country at a time when that very country is clearly acting against our interests. When we distribute foreign aid, it should be with an understanding that the United States agency or department asking for coordination and cooperation from a country in one arena is the same agency or department that will be delivering assistance to that country. We must prioritize our expenditures. There are those in this country, like Ambassador Albright, who think that there cannot be any cuts at all in the foreign relations area. The Clinton administration has actually asked for over $1 billion more in funding over last year's level. Lobbyists for more foreign aid kept trawling the Halls of Congress last year with their buttons saying ``Just 1 percent.'' I just want to point out that the ``Just 1 percent'' is actually about $18 billion. Ambassador Albright is convinced that we have made ``the most out of that (foreign aid) money.'' I am not so sanguine. We have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into countries over the years with little effect, because we have not tied that aid to internal changes in many countries which would make that aid meaningful and eventually unnecessary. I am not in favor of abolishing foreign assistance, but I am in favor of sending a signal around the globe that when American citizens are tightening their belts, and exercising fiscal responsibility, there will be some ripple effects in terms of our aid. We need to send a clear signal that the shared sacrifice here at home should be matched by a certain degree of sacrifice around the world. There is a direct correlation between our international prestige and the fiscal health of this country. If we do not have the ability to put our financial house in order, we will not be respected by countries around the world. If we continue to race down the road to bankruptcy, our influence will not be substantial. It is my sense that our stock will rise on the exchange of the world's international community, when we demonstrate our intent to address seriously our responsibilities. However, the United States is not alone in the need to downsize its bureaucracy and eliminate waste. The United Nations must do the same. To her credit, Ambassador Albright has been an outspoken critic of waste, fraud, and abuse in the United Nations. She was instrumental in initiating an oversight process. However, I am disturbed that she supports the payment of arrears by the United States. The Congress withheld those funds in order to exert leverage for reform. Those funds should not be released until there is tangible evidence that those reforms have been enacted as required by Congress. I am casting my vote for Ambassador Albright with grave reservations. For I want to make clear that my vote for Ambassador Albright to ascend to the position of Secretary of State is not an endorsement of the Clinton administration's foreign policy. As I noted, I take my ``advise and consent'' responsibilities very seriously. I also take my oversight responsibilities very seriously. I pray that over time, my concerns that we are in store for 4 more years of an ad hoc foreign policy will prove to be unfounded. Ambassador Albright is an honorable, committed, and distinguished public official. She is eminently well qualified to be our 63d Secretary of State. It is a privilege to be able to cast the historic vote for the first woman to be nominated for this office. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I look forward to working with her in the future to protect America's interests abroad.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you very much. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for this opportunity to speak. I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in the discussion of the confirmation of the President's choice for Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. Generally, Mr. President, I respect the Executive's prerogative to choose Cabinet officers whom the President believes will faithfully and diligently execute the Administration's policies. However, in our federal system, the Senate plays an important role in the confirmation process through the constitutionally granted power to ``advise and consent.'' It is this duty--the duty to advise and to grant consent-- which brings me before you today, for I have grave concerns regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign policy under the Clinton administration. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I had the privilege and the responsibility to question Ambassador Albright concerning her strategic vision for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Ambassador Albright is a capable and forceful advocate of the Clinton administration's agenda. I am confident that she will serve the President with honor and distinction. Unfortunately, I am equally confident that Ambassador Albright will continue to promote the same misguided Clinton foreign policy that we have had for the past 4 years. We need our foreign relations to be conducted at the highest level of integration and coordination, and the highest level of representation of the sovereign interests of this country and the American people. We must ensure that our influence is used to advance the national interest and to ensure respect for American leadership abroad. National prestige is reinforced and enhanced when we operate with a coherent, concise, and understandable foreign policy. As the world's only remaining superpower--we must enhance our capacity to deliver military, economic, and moral leadership with clarity. To date, the Clinton administration has reacted to foreign policy developments, but has failed to a develop a foreign policy. The administration has lurched from managing one crisis to another, but never articulated the national interest in accordance with a core philosophy. Instead of consistently safeguarding and promoting our values abroad, the Clinton administration has acted on an ad hoc basis according to the exigencies of the moment, confusing our allies and emboldening rogue nations. China was emboldened to conduct missile tests off the coast of Taiwan; North Korea was emboldened to further the development of their nuclear weapons capabilities; Saddam Hussein was emboldened to strengthen his position in northern Iraq. Mr. President, in her confirmation hearing Madeleine Albright said, quoting the President of the United States, ``Where our interests are clear, our values are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must act and we must lead.'' This formula for deploying American forces is one which is so broad and so vague that it sends signals which might confuse other players in the international arena. ``Where our interests are clear''--I suppose we could have an interest anywhere--and ``where our values are at stake''--I am sure the values we hold dear are at stake in every situation around the world-- and ``where we can make a difference.'' Well, the truth of the matter is, no one would think that we would send our troops where we could not make a difference. I remain concerned that if we deploy troops in too many instances just because there are interests and there are values at stake and we can make a difference, there may come a time when our troops will be so occupied that they will not be available to protect strategic national interests where we must make a difference. It is important that we ask the Secretary of State-designate and this administration for a well-defined set of guidelines for how we deploy the strength of the United States around the world. The absence of such a policy, I think, could be disastrous in terms of our own interests and could be confusing and send the wrong signals to the international community. In that respect I send to the desk for inclusion in the Record an editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer of January 13, 1997, regarding this matter and the hearing and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, earlier today Senator Hatch introduced S. 10, the Violent and Repeat Offender Act of 1997. Senators Lott Domenici, Sessions, and I worked with him in developing the bill. While not perfect, the bill does take the initial steps in dealing with the epidemic of violent juvenile crime sweeping the Nation. Mr. President, the face of crime in America is indeed changing. Throughout our history, one thing has been clear: Government's first responsibility is to keep the citizenry safe. John Jay wrote in The Federalist, No. 3 ``Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be first.'' The murderers, robbers, rapists, and drug dealers of yesteryear were typically adults. Now they are typically juveniles. As the age of these criminal predators becomes younger and younger with each passing year, so does the age of their victims. Last Wednesday afternoon, 12-year-old Darryl Dayan Hall was abducted at gunpoint from the Southeast Washington area by three teenagers of a gang known as the Simple City Crew. This is the same gang that opened gunfire at a crowded community swimming pool in June 1993, wounding six children. This past Saturday, police found Darryl's frozen body. He had been shot once in the back of the head and at least once in the body. The three teenagers who are now charged with Darryl's murder have had numerous prior brushes with the law. One of Darryl's assailants was charged as a juvenile with possession of PCP in 1995 and then was released--as is too often the case--promising not to run afoul of the law again. Another of Darryl's assailants was, and is, on probation following his juvenile conviction last spring for possession of PCP with intent to distribute. Darryl's third assailant was charged as a juvenile just last month with carrying a deadly weapon. Mr. President, from 1984 to 1994, the number of juveniles murdered in this country increased 82 percent. In 1994, one of every five juveniles murdered were killed by another juvenile. The rate at which juveniles 14 to 17 years old were arrested for murder grew by 22 percent from 1990 to 1994 and the problem is going to get worse, much worse. Congress, over the last three decades, has established 131 separate Federal programs--administered by 16 different departments and agencies--to serve delinquent and at-risk youth, according to a report issued by GAO last March. Conservative estimates of Federal appropriations used for these at-risk and delinquent youth programs was more than $4 billion in fiscal year 1995. Despite this ongoing massive expenditure, the Federal Government has failed to meet its responsibility of providing public safety in this arena because it has not focused on holding juveniles accountable for their actions, it must focus on the problem of rising juvenile violence. We have a new category of offenders that deserve a new category of responses. We have criminals in our midst--young criminals. The juvenile offenders of today will become the career offenders of tomorrow, if Government continues to fail to recognize that America has an acute social illness that cannot be cured with money spent solely on social programs. This legislation takes a commonsense approach in dealing with the epidemic of juvenile violence. It would help States restore safety in urban, suburban, and rural communities. This legislation would provide $2.5 billion in new incentive grants for States to enact certain accountability-based reforms to their juvenile justice systems. This legislation would authorize funding for various programs, including trying violent juveniles as adults; establishing the ability of States to collect juvenile criminal records, fingerprints, and photographs, and to share that criminal history information within the State, with other States, and with the Federal Government; and establishing the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program [SHOCAP]. In addition, religious organizations would be permitted to participate in rehabilitative programs. Serious, violent, and repeat juvenile offenders must be held responsible for their crimes. Today we are living with a juvenile justice system that was created around the time of the silent film. We are living with a juvenile justice system that reprimands the crime victim for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and then turns around and hugs the juvenile terrorist, whispering ever so softly into his ear, ``Don't worry, the State will cure you.'' The juvenile justice system's primary goal is to treat and rehabilitate the juvenile offender. Such a system can handle runaways, truants, and other status offenders; but it is ill-equipped to deal with those who commit serious, violent, and repeat juvenile crime. The criminal justice system, not the juvenile justice system, can emphasize that adult criminal acts have real consequences. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish, that is, to hold defendants accountable. This legislation would provide financial assistance to States to help them reform their juvenile system. A State would be eligible to receive Federal funds if the State agrees to enact legislation that would provide for the adult prosecution--as a matter of law or prosecutorial discretion--of juveniles 14 or older who commit a violent crime, such as murder, forcible rape, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon; an offense involving a controlled substance; or an offense involving possession of a firearm or a destructive device. Punishment of dangerous juvenile offenders as adults is an effective tool in fighting violent juvenile crime. For example, Jacksonville, FL State Attorney Harry Shorstein instituted a program to prosecute and incarcerate such offenders in 1992. Two years later, arrests for juveniles dropped from 7,184 to 5,475. While juvenile arrests increased for the Nation, Jacksonville's arrest rate decreased by 30 percent. States need to create and maintain juvenile criminal records. Typically, State statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge these records when the juvenile reaches age 18. The time has come to discard anachronistic ideas that crimes, no matter how heinous, by juveniles must be kept confidential. Our laws view juveniles through the benevolent prism of kids gone astray. It should view them as young criminals who know that they can commit crimes, repeatedly as juveniles because their juvenile records are kept hidden under the veil of secrecy. These young criminals know that when they reach their 18th birthday, they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished record. In rhetoric we are protecting juveniles from the stigma of a record but in reality we are coddling criminals. We must separate rhetoric from reality by lifting the veil of secrecy. Law enforcement officers need to know the prior juvenile criminal records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and apprehension. Law enforcement is in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records, according to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is also president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The police chief says, ``Current juvenile records (both arrest and adjudication) are inconsistent across the states, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders.'' The police chief further states that ``There are only 26 states that even allow law enforcement access to juvenile records.'' In the words of Chief Walchak, ``If we [law enforcement] don't know who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.'' It is that simple. As juvenile gangs spread from urban to suburban to rural areas, as they travel from State to State, the veil of secrecy draped over their criminal history records undermines law enforcement efforts. This legislation would also provide money to States to create, maintain, and share juvenile criminal records, and to share those records with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Strengthening law enforcement should be a top priority. School officials need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing for the best interests of all students. Students are vulnerable in unsafe school environments. The decline in school safety can be attributed to laws that protect dangerous students rather than innocent students. While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, MO, a teacher told me that a student came to school wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. The student told the teacher, ``You don't know if I'm a murderer or a rapist and I ain't gonna tell you.'' That student was brutally honest. No one had any knowledge of what he had done and, more important, no way of finding out. If schools know the identity of a violent juvenile, they can respond to misbehavior by imposing stricter sanctions, assigning particular teachers, or having the student's locker near a teacher's doorway entrance so that the teacher can monitor his conduct during the changing of class periods. In short, this bill would allow school officials to take measures that could prevent violence at schools. For purposes of adult sentencing, adult courts need to know if a convicted felon has a history of criminal behavior. According to the 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, nearly 40 percent of prison inmates had a prior record as a juvenile. That is approximately 4 in 10 prison inmates. This legislation will not enable criminals to masquerade as neophytes before the criminal justice system. The bill allows State and local governments to use Federal funds to implement the Serious Habitual Offenders Comprehensive Action Program [SHOCAP]. SHOCAP is a multiagency crime analysis and case management process for identifying and targeting the violent and hard-core juvenile offenders in a community. SHOCAP targets these serious habitual offenders for most intensive social supervisory interventions, the most intensive accountability in school attendance and discipline, and the most investigation and prosecution when they commit a crime. The OJJDP conducted five test pilots of SHOCAP. Oxnard, CA was one of the selected sites. SHOCAP was implemented in 1983. Oxnard found that less than 2 percent of all juveniles arrested in that community were responsible for 35 percent of felonies by juveniles. Four years later, Oxnard's violent crime dropped 38 percent. Illinois and Florida both have recently established statewide SHOCAP's. This bill would allow all jurisdictions to use Federal funds to implement SHOCAP. Reforms are necessary at the Federal level as well. This legislation would make it easier for Federal prosecutors to try juveniles as adults. Under the bill, U.S. attorneys would have discretion to decide whether to try as adults juveniles 14 years or older who are alleged to have committed an act which if committed by an adult would be a felony. This would eliminate juvenile transfer hearings that leave the transfer decision to juvenile court judges. Federal juvenile court proceedings would be open to the general public. When imposing a sentence, the district court would be allowed to consider the juvenile's entire prior juvenile records. In any case in which a juvenile is tried as an adult, access to the record of the offenses of the juvenile shall be made available in the same manner as is applicable to adult defendants. And in those cases in which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent in Federal juvenile delinquency proceedings, the U.S. attorney would be allowed to release such records to law enforcement authorities of any jurisdiction and to school officials. When the act committed by the juvenile is heinous, the punishment will be weighed accordingly. If tried and sentenced as an adult, the juvenile would be subject to the death penalty as an adult. In addition, the death penalty would be lowered from age 18 to 16. The Government should mount a counterattack on gang violence. This legislation targets violent youth gangs, like the notorious Simple City Crew in the District. There would be new Federal penalties for offenses committed by criminal street gangs. Gangs are no longer concentrated in the big cities, they are now in rural towns. The bill would also provide $100 million to hire assistant U.S. attorneys to prosecute juvenile criminal street gangs. We must challenge this culture of violence and restore the culture of personal responsibility. It is high time to consider hardheaded and sensible juvenile justice policies. Where possible we must give second chances. Where necessary we must punish severely. This is a first step to restore justice to a nation that has grown weary of injustice. In sum, this legislation would send a clear, cogent, and convincing message: serious acts have serious consequences. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, let me quickly encapsulate this important piece of legislation for the American people. Last year, in a bipartisan effort, we succeeded, and this year this bill is sponsored by a group of individuals including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, Senator Coverdell, Senator McConnell, Senator Abraham, and Senator Gramm, and I believe that we will again this year have a bipartisan approach. I have already spoken with a number of the people who were active in this measure--Senator Gorton, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Dodd--about last year's approach. We again have introduced a similar bill. This is a step on the road of reforming the legal system to provide reason and rationality where the legal system, the tort system has been out of control. Three years ago, for general aviation, the private airplane business, the small plane business, we passed a law which provided a framework of responsibility which put that part of the tort system back under control. People pooh-poohed the idea. They said, ``It won't help; it won't work to pass such a law.'' But we are now again building such airplanes in the United States. There are 9,000 new jobs in that industry alone because we made that decision, and the quality of the airplanes is better than it has ever been before. We have not deprived anyone of the capacity to receive compensatory damages as a result of inferior products or defects in products, and we want to extend the tort reform effort which began with general aviation a step further. The second step we took last year, in 1996, when we enacted securities law tort reform. And that law went into effect this last year. So it is now time for us, having done the general aviation portion of legal reform and tort reform and having moved from that to the securities law, to move to manufacturing generally in the product liability area. It is not an attempt to curtail compensatory damages. People who are injured should be compensated for their injuries. But it is an attempt to bring sanity and reason to an out-of-control tort system which is hurting the quality of our products, stifling innovation and making it very difficult for some industries to survive here. I need not tell most folks that they have already made these kinds of adjustments in the European Economic Community and, of course, by our competition in the Pacific Rim. This is another step forward in tort reform, and I commend those who have agreed to help us in this respect. I look forward to working with Senators on the other side of the aisle. The President of the United States has repeatedly reiterated his desire to sign a good bill in this respect and we will be fashioning a bill this year. The bill which we have signed is the conference report from last year's effort which passed both Houses of the Congress, and it will provide a place holder as we assemble good legislation this year which we can send to the President and urge him to sign. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to introduce these two measures, S. 4 and S. 5. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her sensitivity on this issue and for her commitment to it. I know she is dedicated to helping resolve this. There is simply no reason why the Government of the United States should put a barrier between the employers and employees of America who want to resolve stresses and strengths. We should have laws that allow people to reach these judgments about flexibly and allocating time, with adequate protection which are enforcement mechanisms through the Department of Labor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to file, in conjunction with Senators Hutchison, Lott, Nickles, Craig, Collins, Enzi, Grassley, Coats, Warner, Helms, B. Smith, and Gramm, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. This is an important piece of legislation, which should free our families from inflexible work schedules in order to meet the competing demands of the workplace and their families. This demand for our time, which stresses us and stretches us, has been recognized by people on both sides of the political aisle. As a matter of fact, the Clinton administration's Labor Department developed a report to the Nation and to the President called ``Working Women Count.'' In order to do so, they surveyed hundreds of thousands of working women. And the conclusion of the report is as follows: The number one issue women want to bring to the President's attention is the difficulty of balancing work and family obligations. The Family Friendly Workplace Act is a way of helping people do just that--meet their responsibilities to their employers and meet their responsibilities to their families. Frankly, it is a way of doing it without taking a pay cut. Now, some have suggested that the way to do this is to have a family leave policy that allows workers to simply take time off work without pay. Well, that really exacerbates some of the tension in most of our families, because we have financial tension as well as this social tension that stretches us between the workplace and the home place. And so, really, what we have in the Family Friendly Workplace Act is the ability to have flexible working schedules at the option of the employee and at the request of the employee, when the employer will agree, that allows a person, for instance, to take time off on Friday afternoon and to make it up on Monday. Most Americans don't realize it, but it is against the law for an employer to agree with his employee that the employee can take time off on Friday afternoon to see his daughter get an award at the local high school and to make up that same time on Monday. The strict laws about hours and overtime make it difficult for that to happen, make it impossible, make it illegal. Those laws were developed in the 1930's. They put a lot of stress on American families. In the 1930's, we didn't have so many working mothers. One out of every 6 mothers of school-aged children worked in the 1930's, and well over 70 percent of them work in the 1990's. As we move to the next century, it is time for us to revamp our approach and to welcome the next century by accommodating these competing demands. Flexible work arrangements have been available to Federal Government workers since 1978--in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, Government workers have had a special privilege. The Federal program has been so successful that the President of the United States, by Executive order in 1993 extended it to parts of the Federal Government that had not yet had the benefits of that program. It is high time that the workers in the private sector of this country enjoy the same benefits of agreeing with their employers on flexible working arrangements at the option of the worker, never to be imposed by the employer, which would allow the worker to accommodate the competing needs and demands of family and the workplace. Allowing workplace flexibility is a tremendous step forward. It has been asked for by the women of America as reflected in the Clinton administration document. It has been written about, like this Time Magazine article featuring the difficulties of Lori Lucas, a single mother, working full-time in Shrewsbury, Missouri. The President of the United States has talked about flextime and the need to have it, and it is time for us to deliver it to the American people--albeit 15 or more years after we delivered it to the workers in the Federal Government. I believe that working women know what they need. Working Women Magazine and Working Mother magazines have endorsed it, and is time to have those flexible working arrangements. Working Women Magazine said in its support of this legislation, that it is time for Congress to give women what they want, and not what you Congress thinks they need. Similarly, when parents spend time at work, they can never replace that time with their families no matter how much overtime they may bring home. Sometimes people would like, instead of being paid time and a half for overtime, to take time and a half off sometime later in order to spend time with their families. That is another part of this bill-- to allow people to take as compensation for overtime--compensatory time instead of money. While it would allow a worker to ask for the money, the worker would have a complete, unchallenged and unfettered right to be paid money for the overtime. This bill is really designed to give workers choices and the opportunity to choose to be with their families instead of being forced to take their overtime in money. For some workers, there comes a point when no matter how much money they have, they simply want and need to be able to spend some time with their families. I am delighted that I have been joined in this particular endeavor in developing this legislation by one of the individuals who is most careful regarding the rights, options and choices of individuals not only in the workplace but as American citizens. I would like to yield to the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, who is the primary cosponsor of this legislation, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, and to call upon her for remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today is an exciting day as I introduce, along with Senators McCain, Coverdell, McConnell, and Abraham, S. 5, the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1977. Justice Holmes once wisely observed that a page of history is worth a volume of logic. With respect to the effort to enact product liability law, we have hundreds of pages of history and volumes of logic to support its enactment now. The effort of the Federal Government to address product liability goes back almost two decades when President Ford established the Federal Inter-Agency Task Force on Product Liability. Although administration changed, President Carter did not abandon the effort, but enhanced it with resulting research that supports what we do today. President Carter chartered the drafting of the Model Uniform Product Liability Act, which tentatively was offered as a vehicle for state action. Product liability legislation has been reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee seven times. Last Congress, legislation and a conference report containing many compromises and bipartisan agreements was voted upon favorably in each House. A bipartisan majority of the Senate approved the conference report on March 21, 1996. The bill that we introduce today is that conference report. I appreciate that today's bill reflects a bill one that was vetoed by President Clinton. But, we are not here today to simply repeat history. We are here to make history and provide Americans with fair product liability legislation. We are introducing the same bill as a ``place marker'' for discussions and a fair resolution of issues. The President's veto message suggested that he well may have been misinformed about the nature of the legislation passed by bipartisan majorities last year. Let us have discussions to clarify those matters so that the legislation is unequivocal in its meaning and purpose. We are resolved to work with the White House to obtain the President's support. I take the President at his word when he said in the Presidential debate on October 6, 1996, ``I signed a tort reform bill that dealt with civil aviation a couple of years ago. I proved that I will sign a reasonable tort reform.'' It is interesting that the President referred to the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, which he did sign on August 17, 1994. The aviation liability reform bill enacted a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. In 1994, proponents of the bill said that it would produce jobs. It has. To date, over 9,000 new jobs, good jobs, have been created. Single engine aircraft are being manufactured in America again, and an endangered industry has been revitalized. President Clinton was right to support that bill. What did opponents say in 1994 aviation bill? They said that no new jobs would be produced. And, they said that if planes were produced, they would be unsafe and, in hyperbole, suggested that they might be made of balsa wood. What actually happened? I already mentioned that 9,000 new jobs have been created. You should also know that the aircraft being made by American workers are the safest single engine aircraft produced in the history of this country. Let us bring the results of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 to the broad segments of our country and industries. We introduce this bill to stimulate job growth. We introduce this bill to remove the chilling effects that prevent the introduction of good and useful products. We introduce this bill to encourage new product development. On the other hand, it is our goal to assure that anyone that makes dangerous and defective products is appropriately sanctioned by our tort law. From the perspective of many, this bill is a very modest one. From their perspective, there is a need to have liability reform in other crucial areas, such as: general punitive reform, medical liability reform, and volunteers' liability reform. The principles contained in this bill are a good starting point to make the product liability laws in this nation fair for consumers who purchase defective products while placing the burden on those responsible for placing these products in the stream of commerce. It also ensures that those who misuse products, or use them while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, do not collect a windfall which becomes a burden for American consumers in the form of increased costs for products--useful products that are no longer available in the market, and the loss of jobs and greater opportunities. This bill in no way limits compensatory damages. This bill would not affect the ability of plaintiffs to sue manufacturers or sellers of medical implants. It would, however, allow raw material suppliers to be dismissed from lawsuits if the generic raw material used in the medical device met contract specifications, and if the biomaterial supplier is not classified as either a manufacturer or seller of the implant. Strong product liability reform is good for America. It ensures that consumers, injured by a product, will be fairly compensated. It will enhance American innovation, which is the best in the world, by treating responsible entrepreneurs fairly while treating the bad actors harshly and to the full extent of the law. As chairman of the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee I am committed and look forward to working with this administration toward ending the 20- year study and painstaking endeavor to provide our Nation with sound and fair Federal product liability law. It took the European community about 6 years to accomplish this goal and create the European product liability directive. Japan enacted its first product liability reform law almost 2 years ago. Our Nation, this Congress, and this administration should pull together and meet the challenge of our foreign competitors and enact fair and balanced product liability law. In that spirit and for that purpose, we introduce S. 5.