John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I want to thank my friend, the Senator from Michigan, for his outstanding analysis. I also want to express my sympathy to him and to those citizens of Michigan whose children were victims of the latest bombings. I commend him for his work in this area and thank him for bringing our attention to this matter. Mr. President, I want to talk about term limits. I want to mention some important reasons why I think it is essential that Members of this body support the opportunity of the States to ratify a constitutional amendment. The Senate does not have the authority to amend the Constitution. We merely have the authority to extend to the States the right to ratify a proposed amendment to the Constitution. To vote against this proposal is basically to say that the wisdom of the Congress is so superior to that of the States that we should not even entrust them with decisionmaking power on limited tenure. Why, then, should we have congressional term limits? Why should we send to the States this opportunity for ratification? I believe we ought to because that potential for ratification is consistent with the central values of this Republic, the central political themes and understandings of our democracy. The first of those is that we are representatives of the people. We come here to provide the people a voice. And while we are to exercise our own judgment, we are to represent the people of the State or district from which we hail. What do the people of America think about term limits? Well, the polling data indicates that 74 percent of them favor term limits. And 41 States have imposed term limits on their Governors. As it relates to city councils, many cities--from New York to Los Angeles--have imposed term limits on their own city councils. As you look at the political map, you find out that there is a glaring hole in the term limits net: the U.S. Congress. It exists for the President, not the Congress; it exists for Governors, for State legislatures, for cities, counties, and towns. all kinds of things across America. But there is one place where it has not existed. There is another fundamental value of American culture that term limits respects and reinforces. It is the value of access and participation. When a few people believe they are the only people that have the capacity to do a particular job, they tend to shut others out of the process. The unfortunate effect of incumbency is that it has closed down the system even further. The American people are understanding folks. They have watched as 91 percent of the incumbents who run for office win reelection. That means that a challenger has a 1-in-10 chance to defeat a sitting Member. Now, you do not have to be a math wizard to understand that, in an open seat situation, the two challengers have a 50 percent chance of winning. Furthermore, the data suggests that when there is the prospect of an open seat, the number of candidates increases exponentially. In other words, there is a substantial broadening of the variety of choices that the American people have from which to choose. I think we ought to make sure that happens more and more frequently. Those who study political science indicate that as you approach an open seat race there are increasing numbers of individuals who prepare themselves for the vacancy by offering themselves as candidates. That is one of the reasons why I think the 6-year limit in the House is so valuable. It would virtually guarantee that we would have enhanced levels of choice for the American people in every elections. It is also important to look at the history of term limits. I think the word ``history'' is important here. So often people debate term limits as if this were some theory that needs to be hashed out in the think tanks before the American people could understand it. This is not a decision made in a vacuum of facts or experience. It is a decision made in an arena with which the American people are fully familiar. The American people have a history of term limits. It is not the passion of the moment. It is not the whim of a particular time. It is an understanding about the way government works. And they have said, yes, we want it for the Presidency of the United States. So you have term limits for the Presidency of the United States. Let me also say that I believe that those who indicate that there are not enough qualified people in the country to replace qualified Members of the Congress have a view of a talent pool in America which is unduly shallow. When George Washington walked away from the Presidency after his first two terms in office he understood that America was a place filled with knowledgeable citizens whose judgment and capacity would sustain this Republic, and he did not allow himself to be swayed by the arrogant nonsense that there are just a few people in America who are bright enough, or capable enough, or sound enough to make decisions. He understood that the tree of liberty would be nourished by an influx of creativity that would be found as individuals stepped aside to return to citizenship and as citizens stepped in to accept the responsibilities of government. It is high time that we had the same understanding of the talent pool in the United States. The pool of available talent in this country is incredibly deep. We have great resources. We have tremendous citizens. There are outstanding persons, and we ought to tap them and call them into the process. Then we ought to send ourselves home to live under the very laws for which we vote. I do not want to be a part of those who underestimate the strength and the capacity of the people of this great land. We have a tremendous capacity in America. We should open the door of self-government to those individuals so that they can participate in government by virtue of coming in and being a part of the U.S. Congress. What would the United States look like if we were to have had term limits? What kind of changes would there be? Mind you that I am prepared to say that I believe we ought to make the decision about term limits based on the fundamental values of this country, based on the sense that we ought to have open access and that we ought to have more participation based on the fact that we represent the people. But what would America look like? When Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute conducted a study, he indicated that we would have had a balanced budget amendment, something we have yet to get. In 1990, 1992, and in 1994, we would have approved the balanced budget amendment. Not surprisingly, the line-item veto, which we only passed this month, would have been enacted more than 10 years ago, in 1985. Think of the thousands, tens of thousands, think of the millions of dollars that might well have been saved had we had the capacity to knock pork out of Federal budgets as early as 1985. I believe that newcomers do reflect something special about the process. Let me make another point. Some people have said that we need experienced people in Washington. I could not agree more. But I have to say that I do not believe that the only experience we need in Washington is government experience. Some of the very best Members of this body are individuals who have brought a wealth of experience from the private sector. To suggest that we need people who have years and years of experience in government is a bankrupt idea which fails to understand that experience happens in places outside the public sector. A couple of other things that are significant to me about the Cato study. And what are the things which would have failed? You guessed it. The last two tax increases and the last two congressional pay increases would not have passed the Congress. Interesting. All of the things that would restrain Government would have passed, and the things which fund Government would not have. It comes down to this fundamental set of values as to whether government exists for the benefit of government or whether government exists for the benefit of the people. In ``The Federalist Papers,'' Madison wrote of a Congress with a ``habitual recollection of its dependence on the people.'' Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a democracy where the citizens all too frequently have a constant recollection of their dependence on government. Just think of the agriculture bill we passed early this month. Farmers were waiting to find out what they could plant. It was a country dependent upon government, instead of a government that was dependent upon, and cognizant of, the citizens. The principal value here is that we recognize what it is the people want. In this case, it is a constitutional amendment on term limits. I believe we should reinforce a reform which would promote access and participation, and which would level the playing field so that individuals who offer themselves for service have a fair shot. One last footnote. A term-limited Senate would be a different Senate because it would require the Chamber to operate on the basis of merit, rather than seniority. While I respect the individuals whose dedication to their country has allowed them to serve this body, I do not concede that they are, by virtue of their service, the most qualified to lead committees or determine policy. I believe we should think about developing, and would develop if we had term limits, a leadership framework based on merit, not rank seniority. Incidentally, the 3-2 constitutional amendment I proposed would do just that. Mr. President, it is time for us to respect the values of the American people; 70 percent of them would like to consider a term limits constitutional amendment. The time for us to extend them that opportunity is now. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data is 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 Paul and Thelma Shannon of St. Peters, MO, who on June 8, 1996 will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Paul and Thelma's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized. I wish them and their family all the best as they celebrate this substantial marker on their journey together.

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 ``til 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 Mr. Robert A. and Mrs. Clara Belle McWorkman of West Plains, MO, who on May 30 will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary. They understand the meaning of the word ``covenant.'' My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The McWorkmans' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized. I wish them and their family all the best as they celebrate this substantial marker on their journey together.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if I may reclaim my time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator will be pleased to yield at the conclusion of his remarks. I would add that I happen to be one of the few people in this body who has been term limited. I think it was a good thing. I have observed the operation of term limits at the State level and, believe me, it is appropriate. I think it is important that the Senator understand what differences there might be if we were to have term limits. Term limits change the way decisions are made. It is of interest to me that Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute conducted a study to determine what life under term limits might be like. What he found is we would have passed the balanced budget amendment three times. Concurrently, we could have equipped the President with the line-item veto as long ago as 1985. Can you imagine? Life under term limits would be different alright. It is my belief that the people of this great land have said, ``We are tired of displacing the costs of our own consumption to generations yet to come. We are tired of the fact that every new child has a debt at birth of $18,000.'' And yet, commonsense reforms like these continue to fall short of the support needed for passage. Mr. President, those are the things that did not pass. The study went on to note things that did. It is interesting. I see my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, is nodding his head because he knows what the issues are. Neither of the last two tax increases would have passed, and the last two pay increases would have failed as well. I do not think that we should have term limits in order to get specific legislation. I think we ought to have term limits because it reflects well on the fundamental values of America. We should give the people what they ask for, what they know they want. We should at least give them the opportunity to vote on it. What stuns me is that Members of this body do not even want to let the States have a chance to consider it. That is a rather troublesome thing. There are a wide variety of arguments that people bring up against term limits. It is said, ``Well, won't term limits increase the power of nonelected bureaucrats and staffers?'' I think in theory you might think the staffers will know everything. That has not been the way things have happened, however. It was not too long ago that Phil Gramm came to the Senate and tried to upset the apple cart of spending in his very first term. I think the 1994 newcomers have brought new ideas and energy as well. Somebody said, ``Well, it will increase the influence of lobbyists.'' I think the basis of lobbyist relationships is long-term. As a matter of fact, most of the lobbyists I have talked to are opposed to term limits. They make big investments. They want those relationships to be as cozy as possible. I do not think we ought to have individuals in the Congress looking forward to long careers in Washington, DC. I think we need people looking forward to service in their district or State. I believe the people of America have a strong understanding of term limits. The people have enacted term limits for 41 State Governors. In every State where they have had the initiative process, they have added Congress to the mix. The beltway around Washington is the barrier to reform. Roughly 74 percent of the people want term limits. We have the opportunity to give it to them. And we have resisted. It is our fundamental duty to reflect the will of the people, to offer them the opportunity to embrace term limits for the Constitution of the United States. The Senator from Vermont inquired earlier about retroactive term limits. What is interesting to me is that, to my knowledge, everywhere the people have had an opportunity to enact term limits on their own, they have made the limits prospective. I believe that is why we should have the kind of bill which has been proposed. It is not that you could not have another kind of concept. Instead, it is because this is what the American people prefer. So I think the will of the people themselves is instructive. There may, of course, be a theoretical reasons why people would want a different approach. I do not know what that might be. But given the experience that the American people have had, and the durability of their understanding, I think it would behoove us to make our approach consistent with what they have requested in the past and with what they have specifically asked for themselves. That is consistent with the fundamental value of democracy for which this country stands. Ultimately, term limits and our ability to offer it to America for inclusion into the Constitution at the adoption of the States is something that should foster, underscore, emphasize, improve, and strengthen the values for which we stand. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. First, I was aware of the Judiciary Committee's deliberations on this. Second, I am aware of your position. Now, let me tell you what I support. I support a measure which would limit the terms of Members of the House of Representatives to three terms and Members of the Senate to two. It would be no problem for me to limit my own terms, particularly since I am new to this Chamber. Indeed, I came here intending to limit my own terms to two. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Certainly.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator asked who has not been here. We have had people from virtually every walk of life, but there have been a few notable absences, and that has caused substantial disappointment. For instance, United We Stand, Ross Perot's organization, has always advocated term limits, but I have not heard a thing from Ross Perot about this. That is a disappointment. I certainly hope that his commitment to term limits is not just lip service. People want commitment to revolution--change or reformation--to be substantial, and I believe that Americans want a real commitment to this kind of revolution. An important aspect of this debate is the fact that Senator Dole first scheduled it last fall, and it was clearly sent as a signal. With such advanced notice, we had the ability to set up the home page for term limits. Not every issue comes to the Senate with this much advanced publicity. With that kind of open communication, people who really care about term limits have had the opportunity to get involved. That is why I thank Americans Back in Charge, US Term Limits, the American Legion, the Christian Coalition, the American Conservative Union, and numerous other groups. And I thank groups like USA Today and CNN who allowed us to have a link from our home page to theirs. It is disappointing that those I expected to be there, who have given lots of voice to a commitment to term limits, have not shown up. However, I believe we have very broad-based support. Yes, there are a few disappointments, such as Ross Perot, but that does not mean they do not favor term limits. Speaking of those who favor term limits and what we have done with it nationally, let me go to a chart which illustrates some important points. About 7 or 8 out of 10 people, according to all the polls, favor term limits. These States have sought to enact term limits for the U.S. Congress, saying that people who represent their State should be limited in the number of terms they can serve. It is interesting to know that these are the States, by and large, that have the initiative process for enacting legislation, meaning that if you are in one of these States and you do not like what your legislature is doing, you can start a petition drive. You can actually initiate a move to enact, to enshrine in the law, a concept that the people want regardless of what the legislature wants. The fact is, you would find that there are 23 States that, on their own motion, simply took the matter into their own hands. They said, ``We want term limits. We are probably not going to get it from the professional politicians, but we will do it by signing petitions; we will take to the streets; we will provide the impetus for this revolution.'' Arkansas is a good example of a State which took such initiative. Arkansas was one of the more recent States to attempt to limit the number of terms the individuals from their State could spend here in Washington, DC representing them. And out of that enactment came a famous case which was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year saying the States cannot do this. The States cannot individually decide on their own that they will limit the terms of the individuals they send to Congress. So, it is 23/50 of the States generally. It is almost 100 percent of the States with initiatives by the people. The Arkansas case, which was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, said that the States cannot limit the period in which their own representatives serve. In effect you have the U.S. Supreme court saying that States do not have the authority. You have the courts, public servants who upon appointment are there for life, against term limits. One of the reasons we had the judiciary against term limits is that the administration, the executive branch, argued before the court in opposition to term limits. With both the executive branch and the judicial branch standing before the will of the American people their only hope is for the United States Congress to be for term limits. I suppose it is true that the Congress is for term limits--term limits for everybody but the Congress. It reminds me of that old saying in my legislature back in Missouri. They would say, ``I will not tax you and I will not tax me, we will tax the fellow behind the tree.'' We are willing to have discipline for everybody but ourselves. The whole idea of term limits is not novel. Senator Thompson, from Tennessee, has done a masterful job of talking about this concept. It is not novel. George Washington set the standard for term limits in this country when he said we should distinguish America from the monarchs of Europe, that we needed to have that renewing flow of creative energy from the citizenry of the country regularly. And he walked away because he understood the value of new life, of new input, of the new energy that comes from new people coming forth from the American citizenry. Term limits reflects George Washington's view of the depth of the talent pool of a free society. He may have looked to some casual observers like the only person with the integrity and capacity in America who could have led the country. There have been times, I suppose, when it may have appeared that there was only one. But I happen to have a view of the talent pool of America that is similar to that of George Washington, and that is that we have enough talent that we do not have to lock a few people into office, thinking they are the only ones who can do the job. I do not think there is any concept that is more ridiculous--and it is almost amusing except it is tragic--than the thought by some Members of this body that we are the only 100 people who could make good decisions in the U.S. Senate. As a matter of fact, we may not be capable of the good decisions, and I think the marketplace of public opinion will determine that. But this country is rich in terms of individuals with the capacity to make good judgments. We need not fear that we do not have enough talent to change public officials once in a while. We have established a history of term limits in this country. In the early 1950's, we checked term limits for the President of the United States. We had a President in the mid-1930's and 1940's who ran four times and, with the tilted field of incumbency, snowballed himself into office four times. The American people understood that the value of incumbency is the No. 1 perk of public office. You can talk about election reform. There is no election reform more important than the election reform of term limits. The American people understood that the tilted field that came from long-term exploitation of incumbency simply had to be leveled, and they leveled the field for President back in the early 1950's, with the 22d amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The President became a term-limited office. To hear some of the academics talk about term limits, you would think that would have been the ruination of America. Not so. Not so at all. As a matter of fact, there are a number of States that have long embraced the concept of term limits for Governor. As my friend from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, indicated, some of those term limits were very short. But the States prospered, finding that the talent pool available in their jurisdictions was always adequate to supply the need for good public officials. There are 41 States that have sought to limit their terms. Mr. President, 23 States tried to limit the terms of Members of Congress, and most of those came as a result of the will of the people specifically, and there are about 20 States where the State legislatures themselves have limited themselves in their terms, because they have understood the value of term limits. I say this to make a point that I hope can be made fundamentally clear. Term limits is not an experimental, novel theory. We have only had one time when we did not have a limit of two terms on President of the United States by virtue of the respect for the term-limits policy of George Washington, and now we have it by virtue of the 22d amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We have 41 Governors who are term limited. We have 20 State legislatures that work under term limits. We have a Congress of the United States which should have been term limited, I suppose, in 23 States, were the courts to allow the will of the people to prevail. But the courts said that had to be set aside. So that the American people have a vast experience with term limits. Not only do we have term limits at the State level but at the municipal level as well. Cities have term limits, notably the largest city in America, Los Angeles, and the second largest city in America, New York City. The President of the United States works under term limits. The Governors of the States are term limited. You have the State legislatures that are term limited. And you have the individuals who work in the cities that are term limited. You say, ``Wait a second, who is out of step here? Members of Congress or the American people?'' You also have the academics and those from the think tanks who say that term limits simply cannot be respected and that they cannot be expected to operate. It is a terrible concept. It will destroy Government. I say to those guys in the think tanks, ``You may not be able to work this out in theory, but the American people have worked it out in practice.'' It may not work inside the ivy-covered tower of academia, but it has for centuries, and in hundreds and hundreds of circumstances. And what is more impressive to me than that is, where are the people rising up to set term limits aside? You have this incredible array of term-limit operations all across America, and the people operate in the context of term limits, where it is there, and they like it. They do not overthrow it. They do not have petitions to get rid of it. They do not have demonstrations against it. As a matter of fact, when the people see it operate in all these segments and the big zero here around the Congress of the United States, what do the people want to do? Does their aspiration reflect their displeasure with term limits as a concept or their endorsement of term limits as a concept? I submit it takes no rocket scientist to figure this one out. Mr. President, 70 to 80 percent of the American people endorse the concept of term limits for the U.S. Congress. I just want to point out they do not endorse the concept out of ignorance. They do not endorse the concept out of a lack of familiarity. They do not endorse the concept because they do not know what they are talking about. They endorse the concept on a basis, a very substantial basis, of watching, observing and living with the observable impacts of the concept as it is related to the President of the United States, as it is related to the Governors of their States, as it is related to legislatures in their States, as it is related to city, county, and local officials in their States. And, all of a sudden, we come to the judgment: Wait a second, maybe--maybe--the people could be right about this. Of course, it is part of the definition of democracy that we value the input of the people, especially when the people are not responding to some cataclysm, but they are reflecting their considered judgment after a rich heritage of experience. It reflects their confidence that America is not a shallow pool containing scarcely 100 people who could serve in the Senate. No, it reflects their understanding that with individuals who can use the perk of incumbency to vote themselves back into office by dealing out the resources of the next generation, they look at that and say, ``There's a difference between what we do at the State and local level and what the Congress does.''

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. We have gotten lots of support from groups, of course, who are focused on term limits-- United States Term Limits, Americans Back In Charge, the American Legion, the American Conservative Union, the Christian Coalition-- politically focused groups that understand the need for the revolution, which the American people have asked for, and a change in the way Washington does business. Individuals all across this great land have flooded our term limits home page. It has been especially interesting to see what has happened on the Internet because it allows people who might not have the capacity to come to Washington the chance to communicate. I have had blind people use the Internet. I have also had paraplegics write thanking us for opening this link of communication. Interestingly enough, I am pleased to say to the Senator from Minnesota, the community at large has been willing and eager to help us open this link of communication. C-SPAN linked our term limits home page to their home page. USA Today, the newspaper, linked our term limits home page and our petition to their home page. CNN, the Cable News Network, provided a link. Politics USA, which is on the net, provided the services of CompuServe and America Online. We have had a tremendous outpouring of assistance and support. It has been very interesting to see the surge of interest and support that individuals have rendered which have made it possible for Americans to express themselves. (Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership and commitment on this issue. Term limits, at its core, is about fundamental American values. More than anything else, a free society respects the will of the people. It is understood that from time to time the passion of the people will move wildly in one direction or other. But when we are talking about term limits, we are not talking about some passionate wave of support for a novel concept. Term limits is a considered understanding of a reform which is working. It is a limitation on service that has been operative for the duration of our democracy in terms of the executive branch, with the exception of President Roosevelt. It is in place in States all across America. So it is indeed consistent with one of the basic values upon which this Nation was founded--a respect for the will of the people. Our ability to receive communication from the people and to respond constructively is one of the reasons that I have sponsored and opened the first electronic on-line petition to the Congress of the United States, from the people of the United States, so that groups and individuals can show their support for congressional term limits. I think it is important that we provide this opportunity for the people of America to indicate their support and demonstrate their interest in this issue. And for groups, interest groups and citizens, that have worked together on other projects, they can knock on the door of the U.S. Congress through the Internet and alert us. We have had more than 40,000 people visit the term limits petition page.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important project. In the next couple of weeks, the Senate will vote for the very first time in history on a proposed constitutional amendment to limit the terms of individuals in the U.S. Congress. This is, indeed, historic. While people are familiar with term limits, because they have applied to the President since the 1950's, and while 40-some States have term limits as it relates to other public officials, the U.S. Congress has never been term limited. It is an exciting opportunity to know that the Judiciary Committee of this Senate for the first time in history has sent to the floor of the Senate, with bipartisan support, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would provide the States with the chance to add to the Constitution, limits on Members' terms in the U.S. House and Senate. People might say, why is that important? I think it is important from a number of points of view. I think that the biggest perk of all in Government is the perk of incumbency. The No. 1 campaign reform ought to be to level the playing field every couple of terms for Members of the Senate and every several terms for Members of the House and let new people have an opportunity to bring their fresh approach and their recent experience into Government from the private sector. Steven Moore of the CATO Institute eloquently phrased the results of his study. He indicated clearly that if we were to have had term limits we already would have passed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It would have passed the House and Senate in the years 1990, 1992, and in the year 1994. We would have had at a much earlier date the therapeutic value of the line-item veto, major reforms that encounter the resistance of career congressional individuals who have been passed long ago. It is interesting to note that this study also indicated that there are several things that did pass which would not have passed, had there been term limits. Moore, of the CATO Institute, indicates that the last two pay increases for Congress would not have passed had we had term limits, and the last two tax increases on the people of this great country would not have passed, had we had term limits. It is time for this body, along with the House of Representatives, to vote to allow the American people, through their States, to embrace term limits for the Congress if they choose to. The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House cannot enact term limits. But we can offer the opportunity to the States through a proposed constitutional amendment. We should do that and do it now. It is a way of inviting the people into the process of Government. For too long the Congress has slammed shut the door of self-government in the face of the American people. It is time to welcome them back. In conjunction with the vote later this month on term limits, I am pleased to announce an exciting experiment in online democracy. It is the first ever congressional online petition. This is a way for the people of the United States of America to register their views on term limits with the U.S. Senate, and to do so at a place through electronic mail. I refer Members to the chart entitled ``Term limits'' at ``jashcroft.senate.gov.'' which is the address for term limits on e- mail. In addition to the e-mail address, you can also register your feelings on term limits by going to any number of home pages which will refer you to the term limits home page here in the Senate. For instance, the CNN home page, the C-SPAN home page, the America online home page, the netscape home page, the politics USA home page will all allow individuals to click to the term limits petition, where individuals can express themselves to the U.S. Congress. This is an unusual petition made possible by the technology. I quote one of our first signers of the petition, Matthew Lovelace, who says, ``Your project puts power in the hands of the people, power that bureaucracy and big Government have taken away.'' He is one of about thousands upon thousands of individuals that have already signed the term limits petition that is online and available to people all across the United States of America. It is not a petition for registration. It will not cause any specific election to happen. It is a petition of communication to send a message from the American people to the Members of this Congress. It began last Wednesday and it is fully underway now. The new technology has the potential to help us redefine the way citizens and communities participate in our democracy. Normally, a petition is an event that you sign and say, ``So long.'' You never see it again. You are not part of it in any sense, other than your name. The term limits petition, however, is one electronically that can allow you to see on a regular basis how many people have signed up, where Members of the Senate are in terms of the petition, and get views of public officials and others who have stated their views and written about term limits as a concept. Further, there can be updates through e-mail to individuals who request updates on the term limit petition. The U.S. News reports that there are close to 300,000 Worldwide Web sites, and to have a term limits Worldwide Web site is just a way of providing the access to American people and people around the world to a concept whose time has come. I do not think there is any better issue that could demonstrate the new technology than term limits. The new technology is designed to give people greater access and term limits will give people greater access to Government. If interactive technology at its core is about the increased deliberation, so, too, is term limitation. Term limits also help to ensure accountability, and that new people and new ideas find their way into Government, and that we have competitive elections. In 1994, 91 percent of all Congressmen who stood for reelection were returned to Washington. Term limits would eliminate the single biggest perk in the electoral system--the perk of incumbency. It is time that we simply say to individuals, yes, you are valuable, yes, you have served well, but there are thousands of people across America with the capacity to serve well and to have an opportunity to bring their creativity to Washington, DC. Dennis Holland of Connecticut suggested, when he contacted my office this weekend, that the Internet and Worldwide Web are the natural place for the free flow of individuals' ideas. I believe they are. That is why we have opened this link of communication for the American people. I will be a part of this free flow of ideas when I appear on America Online chat tonight from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. We will continue to update the Senate on this exciting experiment. I encourage other Members of the Senate to sign the petition to express themselves for or against term limits. That will be made available to individuals across America who participate in this new process of communicating about an opportunity for America, an opportunity for communication and for reform. I was Governor of the State of Missouri for two terms. The constitution of Missouri providently provides and wisely includes a provision that we would limit Governors to two terms. Members of the house and senate in Missouri are limited, as are other members of the State executive. The President is limited in the terms that he can serve. It is a way or an avenue of opening up Government to the people, which we should explore. The House and Senate of the United States, in a couple of weeks, will have an opportunity to send to the people in their States a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States to allow them to embrace term limits as a national concept for the Congress. It is one which I hope they will embrace, and I hope we will give them the opportunity to do so. I look forward to making further appearances as we approach the time for this body to act on term limits. I look forward to seeing the people of America tonight when we are on the America Online program regarding term limits between 9 and 10 p.m. eastern daylight time. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I commend the Senator from Washington and the Senator from West Virginia for bringing to the floor of the Senate a reasonable, moderate product liability bill which the President ought to sign. The representations in this Chamber that we should do better and could do better belie the current performance of this Chamber, which for 15 years has sought to enact a bill like this, but never really brought one forward that could be passed. This is a bill that can be passed. There can be debate about whether or not there is a litigation explosion in this country. Some can say we have too much litigation or too little. Let me give you a fact. The fact is that tort costs are 2.3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in the United States, according to the Tillinghast study. That is 2\1/2\ times the world average. In short, we have the most expensive tort liability system in the world. It is time for us to change that. We must stop wasting money by exchanging it between the trial lawyers and punitive damage recipients instead of using it to create the competitive and economic edge that will allow us to be successful--to create jobs and build equipment, and to grow this economy. We need to revitalize the industrial base of the United States of America. Uniform standards in product liability law would help return good products to the markets, reduce the price of consumer goods, and break the legal shackles on American businesses to help them become more competitive internationally. This bill will make products safer. Litigation, which we have had plenty of, stifles innovation that makes products safe. Overall product safety in the United States improved steadily in the first half of this century, when a much more limited liability system was in effect. We need to make sure that safety, not greed, is what is emphasized by our laws in this area. Let me make another point. We need to make this fundamentally clear: No person will be denied the right to recover actual damages under this bill. Every cent of damages, even damages for pain and suffering previously that has been available, is available under this bill. The bill has limits on punitive damages, but those are damages to punish. Those are not damages to make a person whole for what has happened to them. One last point that I raise, this bill was pared down from what it ought to be and what it should be--in an effort to accommodate the President. We ought to really be extending some tort reform protection to our charities. This bill does not provide protection to churches, to voluntary and charitable organizations, which means there will be no liability protection for volunteers in the Little League, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the American Cancer Society, for people who run soup kitchens. We need an explosion of people helping solve America's endemic social pathologies. What do we have in the United States instead? A tort system which threatens everyone who tries to help his neighbor with the potential of bankrupting liability. Dick Aft, president of the United Way & Community Chest of Cincinnati, put it this way, ``The litigious climate imposes a cost for all charities, costs that can be measured in resigning trustees, lost volunteer hours and sky-high insurance premiums. These are tough times for charities. The last thing we need is a legal system that adds to our burden.'' Mr. President, as long as our litigation system forces a would-be volunteer to consider whether the risks of being sued outweigh the benefits of contributing one's time and talent to charitable organizations efforts to solve society's problems will continue to be unnecessarily stymied. In order to try to entice the President of the United States to go back to his previous position supporting federal product liability reform, the Senate has had to take the protections for non-profits out of this bill. Then the President still comes out and opposes the bill. As a result, I do not know how to trust the President on anything he says. He previously said he supports it. Now he says he does not. Maybe we should distrust his latest representation that he will veto this. We should pass this legislation and give the President a chance to flip-flop back to the right side of the agenda, and I do not mean political right, I mean right versus wrong as a matter of good government policy. This bill is right, it provides a reasonable framework to do business in the United States. It will protect consumers. I believe it should be enacted for the good of consumers and the good of the country.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in regard to the matter under consideration, the appropriations bill, that this body is considering, and I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. The situation we debate today concerning our inability as an institution to control spending is not a situation about allocating spending or the responsibility to pay for spending from one group in our society or culture to another. We are not talking about whether the rich should pay for the spending or the poor should pay for the spending. All too frequently, we find ourselves talking about the displacement of the costs which we incur from our current culture to the culture of the future, to the next generation. We literally, in so many cases, find ourselves debating about the expenditure of the earnings of the next generation, because when we go into debt, we break our responsibility to pay for that which we consume. When we go into debt, we really ask the next generation to pick up the tab. No family in America finds its children encumbered by the debts of their parents. That is against the rules in our society. No parent, no matter how irresponsible the parent is, can cause an enforceable obligation to fall upon the children. We just say that is inappropriate. However, when it comes to us collectively as a group of individuals, we can spend as recklessly, apparently, as we like and cause the greatest of debts to fall upon the next generation. I find that to be unwise and counterproductive, because it means that instead of leaving them with assets, we are leaving the children with debts. That is very bad for the future of the country. I find it to be immoral to spend the money and resources of the next generation without the consent of the next generation. We have tried over and over again as a body here in the U.S. Senate to deal with this problem of recurring debt. We had the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings Act, the Gramm-Rudman Act II, then we had the budget deals of 1990 and 1993. We have not been able to get one Senate to bind the next Senate successfully with discipline. As a matter of fact, this past year we had a substantial debate about whether or not we should have a balanced budget amendment. The occupier of the chair and I firmly agree we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to bind, not only ourselves, but future Senates to the discipline of paying for that which we consume. Unfortunately, there are enough Members of this body who resist that, saying that we should not bind future Senates, that we should not bind future Congresses to live with the discipline of paying for that which is consumed. Equally unfortunate, as a matter of fact more unfortunately, is the willingness of those same people to bind future generations to debt. So what we have is a Congress unwilling to bind itself to discipline but which finds itself more than willing to bind the next generation in debt. It is a kind of bondage which will restrain the next generation substantially in the way it consumes its resources and the way it allocates what spending it ought to have the right to allocate. The next generation will end up allocating that spending to the payment of our debts. It appears from this debate that we are not even able to successfully bind this Senate to the limits it set for itself. Every year the Senate passes a budget resolution to cap our spending. We passed a budget reconciliation act, the so-called Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. That act would have saved enough money by slowing the increase of spending in Government to have enabled us to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002, if the President had not vetoed it. We all know what happened. President Clinton, after alleging compellingly and consistently his desire for a balanced budget, had the opportunity, the first opportunity in a quarter century to sign one, and he vetoed it. As introduced, the omnibus appropriations bill might have allowed us to achieve the first-year target for reducing the deficit set up by the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, but it did not achieve that by reducing the rate of Federal spending as we had intended. Instead, this pending bill, it is my understanding, increases the rate of spending by displacing some of the overall savings which we had hoped to achieve over the next 7 years under the Balanced Budget Act. That means we will no longer be able to count on these funds which were gathered from outyears, stolen, or taken from outyears, to help balance the budget over the next 7 years. This malady, or this pathology, this consistent way of doing business is not a stranger to the Congress, which has always been gathering to itself spending, deferring from itself savings, and displacing from itself the payment of its responsibility. If that were not bad enough, look at what is happening now. I think it is time that we need to stand firm. It is time to prioritize programs, and it is time to make tough choices, protect at least our deficit target if not the target for slowing spending. We are somehow experiencing in this body a collapse of will. We cannot allow that to happen. Each time we add more spending to this bill, we push ourselves further away from achieving a balanced budget that we had hoped to achieve under the Balanced Budget Act. We are throwing away the savings from slower spending which we had worked so hard to achieve and we cast votes to achieve last year. We should not be spending more of the taxpayers' money that is included in this bill. We should be spending less. Are the spending limits really so onerous, are they so draconian, are these limits so oppressive when this bill includes a couple hundred thousand dollars for the expenses of the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad? Are these spending limits that we need to impose really onerous in this bill when they provide for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the purchase of passenger cars for the International Trade Administration bureaucrats abroad at $30,000 per vehicle designation, as though that is an exercise in fiscal restraint? During the first session of this Congress, in the deliberations concerning the adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we frequently heard that there was no need for us to amend the Constitution. Why amend the Constitution when we, as reasonable individuals sent here by voters who want a balanced budget, when we can exercise the restraint, it was said, in order to balance the budget, in order to provide a stable fiscal therapy for the next generation instead of a malady for the next generation? Let us just do the right thing. We do not have to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we were told; there is authority for the U.S. Congress to do what is right and to be able to live within our means and that we should do so immediately. Frankly, it is not such authority that this Congress lacks. We do have the authority. The truth of the matter is that we lack the discipline. We have not had the will, we have not had the courage. I see it eroding as we amend this bill over and over to add spending, and we do it from savings from the years in which we would need to exercise restraint in order to balance the budget by the year 2002. Money was and is the source of Government's basic power. The tale of history bears out this truth undeniably. The Magna Carta prescribed that the king could not impose taxes except through the consent of the Great Council. Charles I was executed because he tried to govern without seeking the consent of Parliament in spending public money. Let us not forget that the American Revolution itself was rooted in the relationship between taxation and representation. Very frankly, the taxes we are spending now are the taxes of the next generation, and they are not represented in this Chamber. Congress today does not have to vote to raise more revenue in order to spend more money. Unfortunately, our legislature takes the debtor's path of spend and beg, spend and plead, spend and borrow, and borrow against the future of the young people of America. Our current system of government lets the Government spend on credit and sign the next generation's name to the dotted line. When their credit card becomes due, it is the American people who are confronted with the dilemma. They can either send more money to Washington to pay the bill or default on the debt incurred in their name. When the American people expressed the belief that Government is out of control, as they did in the November election of 1994, they indeed were correct. For too long we have been out of control. This body has assembled to satisfy the appetites of narrow interests at the public's expense. Protracted deficit spending empowers the central Government with the means to undermine our basic liberties. The American people are understandably fed up with the Congress that spends the yet unearned wages of the next generation. Mr. President, deficit spending is not only a threat to our own prosperity here and now, but it undermines and threatens substantially our children's future. It is the method by which Washington's imperial elite has circumvented the public, the law, and the Constitution. Deficit spending allows beltway barons to run this country without regard for the people. Whether it is pork projects or political payoffs, the Washington elite know how to play the game. The playing of the game must end. We must develop the will, the intensity, and the capacity to enact a balanced budget. Mr. President, as a freshman Senator, I may have not yet mastered the rules of the Senate budget process to the same extent as many of my learned colleagues, but as a former Governor who balanced budgets on a regular basis without raising taxes, I have more experience than most in this Chamber at achieving a balanced budget. Something is wrong with the system when an amendment which increases spending by $3.1 billion can be brought forward for a vote while an amendment proposed by the junior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, to put the savings that we achieve into a deficit lockbox instead of spending it on other programs, is deemed to be a violation of the Budget Act. It is time for us to have our House in order. It is time for us to have an order which allows us to be orderly in this House. A good friend of mine says something which is undeniably true: Your system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting. It may not be what you are wanting or intending, but the system is giving you what you are getting, and it is perfectly designed to do it or you would not be getting that result. What have we been getting? Instead of discipline, we have been getting debt; instead of a restrained Government, we have been getting an intrusive Government. These are not outcomes that are lauded by anyone. We all know that these are outcomes which threaten not only our own existence, but they threaten the next generation's ability free people. If we do not like the outcome, if we do not like what we are getting from the system, it is time to change the system. I think it is time for us to consider the kind of remedy which has been brought forward by the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Arizona, together, in the lockbox provision. If we do not like what we are getting--debt--and we need and want discipline, we should change our structure in favor of discipline, rather than a structure which favors debt and is prejudiced toward debt, being institutionalized and solidified over and over again. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I want to say that because I believe this omnibus appropriations bill which is now before the Senate will impair our ability to reach a balanced budget in the year 2002, I intend to vote against it. I intend to vote against it because I want to vote in favor of the next generation and their capacity to allocate their own resources. I want to vote in favor of discipline and against debt. I want us to have not only the ability to put our House in order, I would like to have us enjoy the structure which would require us to keep our House in order. I hope that other Members of this body will similarly review the evidence as I have and come to a similar conclusion; a conclusion that it is not time for us to additionally burden the next generation, but to exercise the kind of restraint and discipline which will provide for them investment and opportunity, rather than debt. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. The second part of the Senator's measure is, I guess, related to revenues. If we project a certain amount of money that comes in as revenues and for spending, and then we get more money than that, the Senator creates another special fund, that if our revenues come in higher than projected, that money goes into a deficit-reduction account as well?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So when we had an amendment to occasion savings, that would be real savings and not just a diversion to other sources?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So the two components are to change the system so when we amend the system and we amend a measure to reduce spending, the money goes into a special lockbox or fund for deficit reduction, and in the event we have higher-than-anticipated revenues, we sweep those revenues into deficit reduction instead of dumping them into a slush--a fund that can be appropriated for additional spending?

Mr. ASHCROFT. If I might commend my colleague, I think this is the kind of structural change we need. We have been for the last three decades just amassing debt and passing on the responsibility to pay that to the next generation. It is high time we develop a technique and change the structure, which would provide that when we do have the discipline to cut a spending measure, that the cut goes to deficit reduction instead of just being diverted to something else. I thank the Senator for proposing this measure, and I intend to support it. I think it is a major benefit, not only to us here but to the next generation.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator's measure would say whenever we reduce a spending measure here by amendment, that the reduction would go into a special category which could only be used to reduce the deficit?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So all the efforts we make to amend spending measures here and reduce them just allow the diversion of funds to other sources?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Missouri thanks the Chair. It is my understanding that what the Senator is saying is, when we strike something from an appropriations measure and we would reduce the amount of the appropriation, that currently that money is not reduced from spending, but it just becomes available for spending in other areas. Is that correct?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I think I understand what the Senator is saying here, and I think the point is this. When something comes to the floor here and we knock funding out of an appropriation, instead of that being available to reduce the debt----