John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the following unanimous consent requests have been agreed to by the minority leadership, as well as the majority.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, here are the three worst excuses that have been made against voting for the balanced budget amendment in this Chamber. Bad excuse No. 1: We do not need a balanced budget amendment because Congress already has the authority to balance the budget. Of course, we have the authority to balance the budget. What we need is a prohibition against doing what is wrong. The Constitution is not needed to protect Americans from Congress doing what is right. Americans need the Constitution to protect them from Congress doing what is wrong: Spending the money of the next generation. The first five words of the Bill of Rights are, ``Congress shall make no law.'' These words shield the people from Congress. Now we need to protect the rights and resources of the next generation from debts incurred by Congress. Bad excuse No. 2: Before we have a balanced budget amendment, we must specify every detail about how we will achieve it. When President Kennedy made the commitment to send a man to the Moon, he did not lay out the design for the Apollo spacecraft or the booster rocket. He did not decide which astronaut would be the first man to set foot on the Moon. No, President Kennedy called America to greatness, he challenged people to a higher standard, because it was critical to our future. Today, we need to challenge America to greatness again, because balancing our budget is essential for our future. Bad excuse No. 3: A supermajority requirement is undemocratic because it gives a minority the right to block the will of the majority. What is undemocratic is that this Congress spends the resources of the unrepresented next generation. No taxation without representation was the cry of our Founding Fathers, and it is my cry on behalf of unrepresented generations yet to come.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton recognized that deliberations on the Constitution would by no means be, as he put it, ``decorous and genteel.'' Much too much was at stake. Instead, he predicted there would be ``a torrent of angry and malignant passions'' that would be let loose during ``the great national discussion.'' Well, Mr. President, we are having a great national discussion. We can be thankful that we are having it on a basis which is appropriate and genteel. At the same time, we must answer some of the charges that have been made, as well as examine further some of the arguments that are being raised against the balanced budget amendment. Just moments ago, in this Chamber, the Senator from Maryland came to us with the suggestion that the supermajority that is required in this amendment--and, as we all know, in the proposed amendment there is a supermajority of 60 percent required to raise the national debt--is undemocratic to the extent that it inappropriately gives to a minority of people, the 40 percent, the right to block the will of the 60 percent. I agree that it is important for us all to agree that we do not want to have supermajority requirements everywhere, particularly where it is not important. But we also know that the Constitution itself contains a variety of supermajorities that are included in the Constitution because there are some things it is vital to protect. Indeed, the Senator from Maryland pointed out that we have a supermajority requirement for overriding the President's veto. But the reasoning behind prohibiting supermajorities in the main is to keep one group from unduly imposing its will on another group. The reason we believe generally in simple majorities is that we believe that people who are represented ought to be represented on an equal footing. However, there is a special situation about which we debate here today concerning the national debt. And it is not about one group in America displacing the cost of its consumption to another group now existent in America. What we are talking about is the displacement of the costs of current programs that we now benefit from onto the next generation, who are not currently represented at all. It is in truth a problem about allowing one group to impose its will on another group-- another group upon whom this debt is being imposed who are not even here to protest. Mr. President, we have tried over and over again as a body--in the United States--to somehow preclude this recurring debt problem by binding the next Senate. We had the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, then we had Gramm-Rudman, and then we had the budget deals of 1990 and 1993. We have not been able to get one Senate to bind the next Senate to the necessary discipline to restrain this Government from going deeper and deeper into debt. Unfortunately, while the Senate cannot bind the next Senate, the Senate certainly binds the next generation to the current debt. So, when we are talking about a group that is yet to come into existence--the next generation of Americans whose toil has not yet produced the first of its wages--I think it is essential that we have the capacity to require a supermajority vote. Mr. President, in the deliberations we also frequently hear that there is no need for us to have this kind of amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is argued that there is authority now for the U.S. Congress to do what is right. There is authority for the U.S. Congress to do what is right and to live within its means. Frankly, it is only part of what a Constitution stands for, what a Constitution's function is, to provide authority to do what is right. The other half of the Constitution's function and purpose is to prohibit that which is wrong. If we come to the conclusion that spending the resources of the next generation is wrong, we cannot rely on the fact that there is authority in the Constitution for the Congress to act properly. We must prohibit the Congress from doing that which is wrong. The mere authority to do that which is right has been insufficient. We have had in the last 60 years only seven balanced budgets. We have had authority to balance the budget in every one of those 60 years, yet we have not had the fiscal discipline to balance the budget. It is agreed, we have had the authority to do what is right. What we need now is a prohibition against doing what is wrong. It is wrong to spend your neighbor's resources. It is wrong to take those things which are not yours. It is simply wrong. It is part of the consensus that we all have when we first understand right from wrong. Yet we in Congress continue to recklessly spend the resources of the next generation without their consent. The idea of placing a prohibition on the actions of Congress is not new. As a matter of fact, as a precondition for ratifying the U.S. Constitution, the States demanded that there be a Bill of Rights that clearly curtailed the ability of Congress to do things that were wrong. The first five words of the Bill of Rights are ``Congress shall make no law.'' Again, I reiterate Mr. President, it is very important that the Constitution not only include authority to do that which is right, but to prohibit the Congress from doing those things which are wrong. And this is a fundamental function of the Constitution that is as old as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. It is in this context, then, that we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. When you think of the things which were said by those at the beginning of this Republic which inspire us now--such as Nathan Hale saying on his way to the gallows, a patriot willing to give his life, ``I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' I think sometimes that the Congress regrets that there are but one Congress. As a matter of fact, I do not believe we can have any confidence that the debt which we now have could be paid off within one generation, or even perhaps within two generations. But I do have confidence that if we now take this act of principled discipline and begin to prohibit our profligate spending, we will begin to move away from the kind of deficits which have characterized this country for far too many years. It is in this context that we must have this great discussion, Mr. President. It is in this context that we must understand the need for the U.S. Congress to send to the States for ratification an amendment to the Constitution which would impose upon the Congress of the United States the very same discipline under which virtually every State in the United States operates. It is the discipline of practice, of living within the resources that are available, of living within the resources which have been contributed by those whose representatives are in the elected bodies-- the legislative branches of the States. We should engage in the same practice at the national level. Indeed, we should live within the resources that we are willing to gather now--we should not attempt to take the resources of the next generation. The ability to take the resources of the next generation is unique to the U.S. Congress. No family in America finds its children encumbered by the debts of their parents. No matter how profligate the spending of a father may be, the children are not asked to endure the debts of the father. While the Congress cannot bind the next Congress, it can and does bind the next generation. It is time for the Constitution to be amended so that we do indeed curtail this practice which deprives individuals affected of representation--a practice, again, which imposes on the next generation a kind of taxation, a kind of confiscation of their wealth without any participation whatsoever in the development of the priorities their resources are allocated for. It is wrong, Mr. President, and we need to stop it. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to make remarks about the most important action that we will be taking during this session of the U.S. Congress: A vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, there have been a number of reasons elevated for our inspection by those who oppose the amendment, and I think inspection is what they deserve. There are those who say that there are no problems with the Constitution, there are only problems with us as Members of the Senate. That is what constitutions are for. Rules are designed to correct problems in the way the players play the game. There are no problems with the rules of the basketball game, but you have to have a rule against fouling or the game gets out of hand. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is full of ways of correcting abuses which would otherwise occur--because we would have problems as Members of the Senate in making correct judgments--absent the parameters of the Constitution. When the Constitution of the United States starts in the Bill of Rights by saying ``Congress shall have no power,'' it recognizes that the problem may be in Congress, and that the way to correct it is to have a framework which forbids Congress from engaging in the abuses which are hurting the American people or which might hurt the American people. So for Members of this body to suggest that we do not need an amendment to the Constitution--because the problem is a problem of this body, or the individuals who populate this body, Mr. President--is to suggest that, ``Well, we don't need a Constitution, we just all have to act appropriately.'' It reminds me of the famous phrase out of Tammany Hall: ``What is the Constitution among friends? Ignore it, we don't need it, we can just all act properly.'' Constitutions, charters of government, are--and have been from the Magna Carta forward--established on the basis of an understanding that people will not always act properly and, therefore, we need the restriction, we need the confinement, we need the guidance, we need the direction, we need the regulation of a document that protects us from abuses. Interestingly enough, the balanced budget amendment is not really a protection for us against abuses. Oh, yes, we have been abused, but those who have been abused most dramatically are those who are not here yet. They are the children of the next generation. They are the individuals who have not yet gone to school, let alone gone to work. They are the people whose wages we are now spending before they even go to work. We are spending them to satisfy our appetite for program after program, for policy after policy, for interest group after interest group, in a wild credit card binge across America, buying votes for the next election to the U.S. Congress, be it the House of Representatives or the Senate. We must curtail that, Mr. President. It is suggested by our friends-- as the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts just a few moments ago suggested--that it is undemocratic to have a provision in the Constitution which would require that 60 votes in the Senate be required in the event you wanted to go into debt, asserting that it is undemocratic not to let the representatives of over 50 votes be able to have equal weight. But I am worried about the votes of the next generation. I think it is undemocratic for this body to encumber the next generation, to say to the children of the next century they will not have an opportunity to decide how the tax revenues of their America will be spent because we will spend their taxes for them now. We are talking about a fundamental problem here. It is a problem of taxation without representation and, yes, the problem is in the Senate, the problem is in human nature. And one of the reasons you have constitutions is not to say that if everyone acts at their best and highest level of responsibility we would not need it. The reason is that we know that there will be times of weakness, when in spite of all the good intentions, those good intentions will not lead us to do the right thing. That is why the first amendment to the Constitution says, ``Congress shall make no law,'' and as you get to the amendments added on through the amendment process, over and over again we have seen the wisdom of saying that Congress shall not be able to impair principles which are important to the future of this democracy. And that is where we are at this very moment in time. It is fundamentally important, Mr. President, that we say about the next generation that we will build a hedge between them and the spending habits of the U.S. Congress so that we in this body do not spend their birthright. Taxation without representation was the core, it was the kernel of the revolution, which grew and finally flourished in freedom--which has not only found its way from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but has found its way around the globe, nation after nation modeled on what we did here in America. But that revolution was a fundamental response to authorities somewhere else taxing us without representation. I submit that that is exactly what we in this body have been doing by jeopardizing the future of the next generation. We have simply said to the next generation--without telling them because they are not here to hear us--that we are going to spend your money this way and we hope you are productive when you get here, because when you earn the money, it will be taken to pay for the excesses, to pay for the desires, to pay for the programs, to pay for our catering to special interests in our generation. It is time we stop that. It is true that we could stop it without an amendment to the Constitution, but will we--or have we? Over and over again in the debate, we have had it brought to our attention that through the eighties and even in the seventies and even as early as the sixties, there were resolutions of this body and there were laws enacted that would pry us out of the pattern of deficit spending--but absent a strong wall in the Constitution to protect those yet unborn generations, we have always managed to find our way to do what is expedient for the next election--not the next generation. It is time now for us to make such a commitment. The idea that the pending amendment to the Constitution somehow would impair us from doing all the responsible things that our colleagues have said they would like to do--and I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for his willingness to say that he will support a line- item veto and that he will support cloture on it so that we can get real votes on expenditures--is inaccurate. Nothing in this proposed amendment, nothing in this resolution, that kind of responsible behavior in the next days and weeks and months to come. Mr. President, nothing in this amendment would stop this body, in conjunction with the House of Representatives, with the cooperation of the President of the United States, from implementing a balanced budget at an earlier time. Nothing in this proposed amendment to the Constitution would impair a responsible Congress from doing what it ought to do. So we have all the authority to do what is right that we have ever had--but our problem has not been the absence of authority to do what is right. Our problem is the absence of a prohibition against doing what is wrong. And in the absence of that prohibition against doing what is wrong--spending the resources of the next generation--we find ourselves over and over again deeper and deeper in debt. The President of the United States last year indicated that there would be reduced deficits and there would be a continuing decline in the level of deficits, and that commitment lasted almost a full year. Then this year's budget came out, and did we find ourselves with reduced deficits on a steady decline toward a balanced budget? No, there was simply a concession. The big white towel came out of the corner into the middle of the ring and we conceded that there would be deficits over $200 billion on average for the next decade, and who knows what thereafter. Again, the problem is not that we already have the authority to do what is right, the problem is that we are not prohibited from doing what is wrong. And what is wrong is spending the resources, spending the inheritance, spending the birthright, of the next generation. It is spending my kids' wages before they graduate from college. It is spending my grandchildren's opportunity to be productive in a world economy that is going to demand productivity, and if they are spending all of their resources on interest on our debt, if they have to tax people and businesses to pay for prior years' excesses--our excesses-- they are not going to be competitive in a marketplace that requires productivity. No, Mr. President. We, and they, will find ourselves sliding back into the backwater of the swamp of those nations that are incapable of being on the cutting edge. It is time for us as a body to make a commitment to America's future. It is time for us to say, yes, the budget was balanced for well over 150 years except in time of war. It was a tacit agreement, it was an understanding, it was honored as if it were in the Constitution--but we do not have, apparently, the stature or the will or the capacity to do it now. Nothing in the proposed amendment would keep us from doing it. But let us just ensure that we build this firewall between the next generation and the spending habits of the U.S. Congress, that we build a bulwark and we save those grandchildren--the next generation--from our spending habits. Let us say that as for us, as for me and my house, as for the Senate, as for this Government, as for this Nation, we will be responsible. If the 1994 elections meant anything, I think they meant that the people of the United States rejected a Congress that was arrogant--a Congress so arrogant that it passed laws for other people to live by but that the Congress did not have to live by, a Congress so arrogant that it would tell State and local governments what to do, thinking that it had been elected to do State and local tasks as well as national tasks, and a Congress so arrogant that it spends the money of the next generation as well as the resources of its own. I think the people of America expect us to repudiate that behavior pattern, Mr. President. But frankly, they expect us to enact a constitutional amendment to assure them the pattern does not happen again. Time after time, they have listened to the U.S. Congress repudiate ways that were going to balance the budget. They have heard proposals indicating that there would be special withholdings to make sure that it did not happen, and time after time they have watched-- sometimes when the curtain was drawn, sometimes when it was in full view--they have watched the U.S. Congress, having made a solemn oath, having made a legal commitment in a statute, turn around and change that statute. The tragedy is that the U.S. Congress can change the rules for the U.S. Congress, and so a statute is not enough, a resolution is not enough, a sense of the Senate is not enough. The tragedy is that we can change our own rules, and we have changed them over and over again. That is the tragedy. However, there is also beauty, Mr. President. The beauty is that the U.S. Congress cannot change the U.S. Constitution by itself, and so where we failed as a body in the past because we were always able to change the rules in the law, I believe we now have a chance for success if we put the pending rule in the Constitution--for this is not the transitory whim of just a majority in the Senate. For this resolution to become the law of the land in the Constitution of the United States, it will take the ratification of three-quarters of the States, of the United States of America, to change it and adjust it. To erode it or impair it would take a similar consensus by all the States as well as this Congress. And I believe at any of those junctures during the last three decades when the Congress weakened, we would not have found three-quarters of the States willing to weaken with them. Not on your life. The people of America would have said, stay the course. Let us make sure we maintain our commitment to a balanced budget. It is time for us to enact the balanced budget amendment because it would stay the course, Mr. President. Yes, the problem is a problem with the Congress. But the way to remedy the problem with the Congress is to build a wall between the Congress and the next generation. Just to take us back for a moment in history, this Nation was founded as a result of a commitment that it was morally wrong and politically improper for one group to tax another group without its consent. The net result of the Currency and Revenue Act of 1764, undertaken by the British to end the smuggling trade on molasses as well as to raise additional revenue, was to give British sugargrowers an effective monopoly on the colonial sugar market, and it irritated the colonists, it irritated Americans because we were being taxed without representation. The Stamp Act of 1765, well known to every schoolchild, extended to America a broadly based form of direct taxation that had long been in use in Great Britain, and the colonists simply said ``no taxation without representation.'' It is a principle embedded in the very depths of American history and in our character. Patrick Henry, in response to that Stamp Act of 1765, said, ``The colonists are entitled to all privileges and immunities of natural born citizens, to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding in and born within the realm of England''--meaning no taxation without representation, a fundamental guarantee as old as the founding documents in Great Britain. The Townshend duties of 1767 were passed to raise revenues on imports to this country, widely used imports like tea and window glass. And you know what happened with the Tea Act of 1773. And over and over again-- the Coercive Act of 1774. All of these became a part of the very fabric of American life as did our resistance to taxation without representation. And what are we doing when we have deficit spending? Are we taxing ourselves? No. We are taxing the next generation over and over and over again, thousands of dollars. Every man, woman, and child born in the United States comes into this world not with a clean slate but with a debt load. And we must make sure that when the Statue of Liberty holds high her lamp beside the golden door, it is not a lamp eliminated by a debtor nation; that it is a lamp of opportunity, not a lamp of responsibility to pay off the debts of previous generations. A rising $4.9 trillion debt amounts to taxation without representation. There is no other way to categorize it. I think of the young person, not old enough to vote, in the American Revolution, Nathan Hale, captured by the British. They handle him in the rough justice of wartime, and they decide to hang him as a traitor to the crown. And before he dies, he inspires us with the words, ``I regret that I have but one life future, is willing to sacrifice himself. What a contrast, Mr. President, to where we stand in the United States today. Looking only to ourselves, we are willing to sacrifice the future. Nathan Hale says, ``I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.'' In this body we say we regret we have but one next generation to mortgage for our appetites. We must cease. We cannot continue. It is beyond what free people should do to one another. But even more importantly, we should be unwilling to provide a debt load which will burden the next generation. Mr. President, this is the single most important responsibility we have. It is a responsibility that relates to the ability of this country and the next generation to be successful, for us to succeed rather than sink; for us to survive and to be a swimmer rather than a failure. That is what we need. We need to build a system which allows those who follow us to have the kind of opportunity we have enjoyed. We have already talked about the fact that those on the other side of the aisle have said to us there are no problems with the Constitution, there are only problems with Members of the Senate. The truth of the matter is that is what Constitutions are for, to make sure that problem areas that are inherent in human nature do not find their way into policy. Let us keep those flaws out of policy and let us stop this practice of spending the next generation's resources before they are born. Those opposed to the pending amendment have also complained that it requires a supermajority in order to raise the debt, or to abandon the principle of a balanced budget. They say such a requirement is undemocratic, that we should just be able to spend more than we take in if we have an even majority or a bare majority. In my judgment, what is undemocratic is to keep obligating the next generation, to keep obligating those who are yet unborn by spending their money. The real tragedy is that the U.S. Senate--in all of its attempts to come up with a way to curtail spending, to stop itself from its spending binge, after setting enactment after enactment, after expressing itself over and over again--has each and every time subsequently come along and undone the deal, taken apart the framework and said we are going to let ourselves go, now that we are really hungry. The problem is the Senate and the House, with a law, a mere statute, cannot bind the next Congress. What is an even bigger problem, though, is that while we as a body cannot bind the next Senate, we can bind the next generation to debt. So while we cannot bind ourselves to discipline, we continue binding the next generation to debt, over and over and over again. It is time for us to remedy that by enacting the kind of framework, the firewall, the bulwark, the barrier between the spending habits of the U.S. Congress and the well-being of the next generation of American citizens. Mr. President, there have been those who have said we do not need anything to do with economic policy in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it was one of the distinguished Members of this House who said the U.S. Constitution is decidedly not a charter of economic policy. For the first time it would be writing into the Constitution economic policy. I went through the U.S. Constitution, seeking to find specific areas where we talked about things that would have direct economic impact. It is almost impossible to find a part of the Constitution that does not have economic impact. I submit, whether you are talking about section 8, which provides for us to be able to pay our debts, or whether you are talking about section 7 of article I, that talks about bills for raising revenue that shall start in the House of Representatives, or whether you are talking about the ability to raise and support armies but no appropriation of money can last for more than 2 years. That is an interesting part of our Constitution, to find in article I the language, and I read it: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years. The idea that we would not commit future generations, we would not commit too far in advance, that we would not place a burden on those who were not represented in the Congress is intriguing--could it be that 2 years is the length of a congressional term? You would expect that the next Congress would not have to live under the debt or the requirement of the previous Congress. My view is, when it comes to spending, is that we have always been willing to be pretty close about spending. We do not allow the Senate, for instance, which is not elected every 2 years, to be the originators of spending measures. Spending measures must originate in the House of Representatives, where the people are face-to-face with their Representatives every 2 years. The Constitution is full of economic considerations. I went through it. The next page has more underlining, and the next one even more to highlight economically related items in the Constitution. More text is economically related than is not. As a matter of fact, this entire document--the Constitution--is full of things that relate to our economy. The amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provided for the progressive income tax is a matter having perhaps the most direct economic impact of any single event in the history of the United States, and is part of the Constitution. The suggestion that something, because it has economic impact, does not belong in the Constitution of the United States is hollow, it is empty, because there are sections following sections, and sections upon sections and there are subsections and there are amendments and subparts of amendments that all relate to economic considerations. The very structure of the Constitution has to do with the economy of the United States. Mr. President, one of the things you need to have for a good economy is a stable government. And we have the most stable government of any government in the world. Why? Because it is in the Constitution that we have two Houses, and that one of the Houses is the Senate, and that by design it does not have the same willingness to make quick changes as the House, and that it would be a brake--or a more deliberative body than the House--while the House is very closely associated with the people, and perhaps more responsive to moods or fads in society which nevertheless might be good public policy. We have had this joint way of doing things which has led to governmental stability. Is there an economic provision in the Constitution? It provided a basis for a sound economy. Without it, I wonder whether the United States would have flourished to the extent that we have flourished, economically or socially. In my judgment, every word in the U.S. Constitution is a word that provides the basis for an economy and a set of opportunities that define the character of this Nation. And the economy cannot be taken out of the Constitution. Of course, the balanced budget amendment is far more than just something related to the economy. As George Will said in his book ``Restoration": Proscribing deficits is different because deficits are political and moral events, not merely economic events. Mr. President, a balanced budget amendment would do something of fundamental significance. It would protect important rights of an unrepresented group--the next generation. If the Constitution of the United States is not supposed to protect the rights of the unrepresented--and those who are helpless--what is the Constitution for? The Constitution was indeed designed, was enacted, and was embraced by the American people--and has been and will be--because it protects us against abuses of power. It should also protect the important rights of an unrepresented group, as George Will puts it, the ``unborn generations that must bear the burden of the debts.'' The amendment would block a form of confiscation of property, of taxation without representation, of confiscation without due process of law. As I recall from my law school training--it has been a few years ago--but I believe the fifth amendment has something to say about taking without just compensation. Constitution--while it is full of documents and sections and clauses which have an impact on economics--is not only an economic document, it is a political and moral document, as well. Protecting the rights of those individuals who need protection is part and parcel of what the document is all about. And protecting them from what? Most frequently, protecting them from the U.S. Congress. Over and over again we read it: Congress shall make no law; the Congress shall not impair. That is the language of the Constitution. Yes, the pending provision would have a financial and economic impact on this country. But it has a political and moral impact as well. It protects freedom. It protects freedom from debt--something certainly worth protecting. Let me just say that there is more to this amendment than protecting the next generation. We need it to teach the current generation. One of the aspects of government which is very important and fundamental to our society is the fact that government teaches. We train our children--and rightly so--that government defines what is legal and what is illegal. And that they had better listen to what the Government says. Because, if you do bad things, you will do your time, as well. You will ruin your life. You will impair your freedom. You will destroy your opportunity. Government is set up as the arbiter of what is legal and what is illegal. And children rightly begin to look to the Government as a moral arbiter of what is valuable, what is good, what is to be accepted, and what is not good, what is to be rejected. When people in a society look at their Government and conclude that their Government does not pay its debts, what does that teach? Does it teach responsibility? We as a culture have a crisis concerning people accepting responsibility. They look at the Government, which they have been told is the arbiter of right and wrong. And what do we learn? What we are learning from the Government is, ``Oh, don't worry about it. Just take the credit card and go on a binge, and hope the next generation pays for it.'' The truth of matter is, we are learning irresponsibility. It not only destroys the character within us, but it destroys the opportunity of the next generation. It not only destroys their economic opportunity, it suggests to them the sinister failure of a moral certainty, which is that we should pay our own debts. Anyone who thinks we should abandon the idea of having government act as a good example for our citizens ought to take a look at the news magazines for the recent weeks. Take a look at Newsweek a couple of weeks ago, Newsweek or Time. Forgive me for not distinguishing. The cover story was about the absence of shame in society, about no one having a sense of what is right or wrong, no one having a sense of responsibility. Take a look at the front page of U.S. News & World Report today. It is about men who forsake their families, who do not take care of their obligations, who act irresponsibly. Mr. President, We preside over a Government that has forsaken the families of the future, which has mortgaged the next generation's inheritance and birthright. How can we expect our society to be moral and responsible when we--those who have been elected to lead the society--lead it with classic irresponsibility, abdicating our responsibility to limit ourselves to the resources we have? We just toss that principle away, pull up to the table, roll up our sleeves with knife and fork, using our card--and their credit. And we impair and cheat the next generation. This is the major challenge for those of us in the U.S. Congress this year. It is to reverse the concept that somehow the Congress is better than everyone else, that somehow the Congress does not have to live by the laws. We have taken a major step. In the Congressional Accountability Act we said we would live under the laws we passed for others. In the unfunded mandates law--which passed in the Senate and another version in the House, on which we are working to collaborate and work out the details--we said, yes; we are not even going to try to tell other people what to do through unfunded mandates. We need to come to a further conclusion, Mr. President, and that is that we are not going to spend the wages, we are not going to spend the resources, we are not going to continue to sustain a policy which will put every newborn child in America in multi-thousand-dollar debt. We simply have to stop it. We have to say to the American people, we are not so good that we can spend the next generation's money. We are not so wise that we can make all their decisions for them. We have to say with a sense of humility that it is time for us to live like the average family. It is time for us to have a balanced budget like the average family has a balanced budget. Some people say average families have debt. But there is no provision whereby any average family can impose debt on the next generation. You have to be able to pay it off, or you go bankrupt. No father can say, ``My grandchildren will pay for what I am doing now.'' And should any father do so? Of course not. The average family has to have a plan to pay. We do not have a plan to pay. State governments, sure, they have debt. But they have a plan to pay. And every day, they owe less than they did the day before, as they are paying off the debt. If they pay off the debt before the asset--such as a bridge or a building--is used or consumed, they actually have paid for such items in advance. But we in Congress do not have a plan to pay. We have a plan to play. And the plan to play was outlined in the President's budget which came to us. We are playing with the next generation's resources, $200 million--excuse me--$200 billion. I was in State government too long. We only had millions instead of billions. What a tragedy; $200 billion a year. We admit it. This is what we intend to do to you. We announce in advance with some pride that for the next 10 years we are going to keep doing it. It is something that we should stop. Yes, Nathan Hale said, ``I regret but that I have but one life to give for my country.'' We have been saying that we regret but that we have but one unborn generation to mortgage for our appetite. It must stop, Mr. President. The Declaration of Independence for the United States of America included dramatic language which talked about the fact that individuals were committed to providing for the future a set of opportunities that would allow for personal growth and development, for the achievement of objectives and goals. The last line of the Declaration of Independence for the United States of America is an interesting line. The last line reads: ``We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' How would we feel about the Declaration of Independence, Mr. President, if we were to read down through the document and come to the last line and it were to say, ``We mutually pledge to have a good time, to spend the next generation's money, and to get reelected by serving the special interests of today with the resources of the unborn?'' We would dishonor that document so rapidly, we would repudiate it so thoroughly. But that more accurately describes the conduct of the Congress in recent times. It is time for us to enact the balanced budget amendment. And while we are enacting the balanced budget amendment, it is time for us again to put our John Hancocks on the pledge that closed the Declaration of Independence. It is time for us to say that we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, and by doing so, provide the same level of opportunities for those who follow us as those who went before us have indeed provided for us now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, when our ancestors were on the verge of a revolt against the British Government, Edmund Burke rose in the House of Commons to urge his fellow Members of the House of Parliament to refrain from using force to impose taxes on those in the United States, which were then Britain's American Colonies. Burke had the courage and the wisdom to speak for conciliation. He foresaw what no one else did-- that if England persisted in taxing this country, it would lose its empire and would fight a long war for a bad cause. Burke told the Members of Parliament that in attacking America through taxation, they were really attacking their own British liberties. As we discuss the balanced budget amendment, we usually talk about the impact of runaway spending on our economy and on our future. Those are our fundamental considerations. But we also must not lose sight of considerations that are far more fundamental and profound. Protracted deficit spending empowers the central Government with the means to undermine our basic liberties. We hear it said in this Chamber, and by the media, that the American people are selfish because they want the benefits of Government without the cost of taxes. We forget that the power to impose taxes is a standing threat to freedom. Mr. President, the acknowledgment that we can only control Government by controlling its capacity to take our money is as old as the idea of democracy. Money was--and is--the source of testament to this truth. 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. Congress today does not have to vote to raise more revenue in order to spend more money. Instead, our legislature takes the debtor's path: Spend and beg; spend and plead; spend and borrow. Our current system lets the Government spend on credit and sign the taxpayers' name on the dotted line. When the credit card bill comes 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 express the belief that Government is out of control--as they did in this past November's election--they, indeed, are correct. For too long, this body has assembled to satisfy the appetites of narrow interests at the public's expense. The American people are fed up with a Congress that spends the yet unearned wages of the next generation. Mr. President, deficit spending is not only a threat to our prosperity and 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. That must end. A balanced budget amendment will compel the Members of this body to raise taxes if they want to spend more money. What better way to restrain spending than that? A balanced budget amendment will make it clear to all that the special interest is rewarded when the citizen is penalized and that we should refrain from penalizing citizens to reward special interests. What will a balanced budget amendment mean? It will mean accountability to the Constitution and restraint on our spending--in short, it will mean integrity in Government. It will rightly return the power of the purse to the people. Two centuries ago, in a nation across the sea, Edmund Burke reminded his fellow Members of Parliament of a fundamental principle. Burke said: * * * the people must in effect themselves * * * possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty [can] subsist. Mr. President, if we truly wish to preserve the liberties first inscribed into the Magna Carta and then brought to these shores--and preserved through the blood of revolutions on two continents--it is imperative that we return to the people the power of the purse. We must take the American Express card away from the Congress and eliminate the expense account of the beltway barons. We must make the Members of this body accountable to the taxpayers--not to the lobbyists. We can do this if we have the will. The balanced budget amendment is not a quick fix. But it is real reform and it will be felt. I know--from my service as Governor of one of the States--that 49 States, in effect, require a balanced budget. It is not a gimmick. We balance the budget. I balanced budgets 8 years in a row while I was Governor. As a matter of fact, we put into place a cash operating reserve fund of several hundred millions of dollars. We established a rainy day fund--such as the emergency fund that the senior Senator from Illinois has suggested we have for the Federal Government--because we knew there would be episodes of fiscal crisis and financial difficulty in the future that we would need to meet. And we knew, since we were required by our constitution to have a balanced budget, that we would need to prepare for it in advance. So, Mr. President, let me say it again for emphasis. A balanced budget requirement is not a gimmick. It is not a quick fix either, but it is real reform. It will reestablish the responsibilities observed in this country for decades--prior to the last two or three--that we would have balanced budgets except in time of war. A balanced budget is a political reform that will be felt first and foremost by the imperial elite who have long run this town. It will be felt by a brood of beltway barons--both elected and unelected--who are robbing the next generation of their inheritance. And, most importantly, it will be felt by the American people who will have succeeded in restoring their right to self-governance. There are those in this body, Mr. President, who suggest to us that we somehow have to forecast the next 7 years of priorities in spending for the United States of America in order to give allegiance to a balanced budget amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth as far as I am concerned. I know of no State which tries to lock itself into a 7-year budget which would deny subsequent legislatures the opportunity to adjust to priorities, to respond to circumstances, and to create budgets which meet the real needs of the individuals in the jurisdiction at the time. When President Kennedy came before the United States of America--and before the House and Senate--and suggested that we as a nation, adopt and embrace an aspiration to put a person on the Moon as an expression of our ability to expand our technological and scientific awareness, he did not have every answer for every way in which everything would happen, but he expressed it as an aspiration--an aspiration toward greatness. The desire to climb a mountain does not always contain in it all the plans and processes and procedures, but you commit yourself to the objective and you launch your endeavor and you work your way toward the objective. And it is essential that we do that at this time. The suggestion that our aspirations regarding Federal spending can be accomplished without a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution calls history a liar. For decades and decades, the United States of America has conceded the necessity--but never developed the discipline--to get this job done. It is time now that we make this commitment to a noble objective, to protect the birthright of a generation of Americans yet to come, to protect the opportunity for productivity and competitiveness for the next generation. It is time that we made this commitment for ourselves --and for those who follow us. Mr. President, I am grateful to have had this opportunity to address this body on these issues. I note that Senator Heflin desires to speak, so I yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, 1994 was a watershed year in America. Our people spoke with a clarity and intensity seldom heard in the halls of politics. Their voices reverberated across the continent like the revolutionary shot heard round the world at Lexington and Concord two centuries ago. The voters' voice was a clarion cry for revolution in Washington, DC--a revolution that returns the right of self-governance to the people. We, the American people, are self governing. We are free people. We have the right to govern ourselves. We have spilt American blood not only across this continent, but around the globe, to preserve our right to self-government. Fifty years ago, to win the Battle of the Bulge, commanders compelled the cooks, the clerks, and the corpsmen to join the front lines and to defend our freedom of self-governance. For victory, all had to fight, all were necessary, none were excluded. Well, we again must invite everyone to join the battle and participate in victory for self- governance. Those of us who were in the trenches of politics this year heard the battle cry for reentry by the public into the public policy arena. The citizens of this Nation are determined to regain the right to participate in their government. They want to reopen the door to self- governance--a door that too often has been slammed in their face. We must not slam it in their face again. The people want the right to self-governance. They want the opportunity to decide on term limits. Some say that the States can decide on term limits, but the courts have struck those statutes down almost uniformly. In one remaining case, the Arkansas case, the Attorney General, the executive branch, has slammed the door in the face of the people, saying they have no right to make such a determination; States and the people have no right to establish term limits, the executive branch says. The judicial branch considering the case is likely to slam the door, as well, saying the people have no right to chart the course of their own future, to establish limits on the terms of those of us who have the privilege of representing the people in making public policy decisions here in Washington. Congress, then, the last remaining branch of Government, holds the key to opening the door of self-governance to the people. Back in 1951, the Congress sent to the American people the opportunity to enact term limits for the President. Congress could not enact them, but it called upon the people to make a judgment to participate in the process of public policy development. Presidential term limits were not imposed by the Congress. The door of decisionmaking was swung wide for the people of this great country to decide whether or not they wanted term limits for the President. Indeed, they did decide; they participated. It was good public policy. They ratified the 22nd amendment. [[Page S1236]] The question is not whether we will provide term limits to America. The question is whether or not we will allow the American people the privilege of participating in public policy determinations, whether we will let the American people decide for themselves whether or not they want term limits for Members of the U.S. Congress. I have a hint about what the American people believe and how they think. Twenty-two States have already overwhelmingly endorsed this concept. And of the States given the opportunity to make such a decision, the people voting in those States almost uniformly and without exception have endorsed the understanding that people should not go to Washington for an entire lifetime, but should go expecting to return from public service. The question then is, will we let the people decide or will we slam the door of self-governance in the face of the American people again? We must let the people decide. It is time for us to acknowledge again the principle of self- governance. Let the people decide. It is time that we trust our people, the people of America, as our forefathers did. Let the people decide. Let us demolish the misleading myth that Congress exists to protect people from themselves. We must instead respect the reality that there is wisdom in the people. We must acknowledge the reality that self- governance is not simply a politically expedient idea, it is, in fact, governmentally beneficial. The people are eager to participate in shaping the tomorrows in which they live and in which all of us work. They are demanding the opportunity to decide whether or not to limit the terms of Members of this body and of the U.S. House of Representatives. As servants of the people, we must pass a resolution on term limits that recognizes that term limits cannot be in the exclusive province of the House or Senate, but this is a decision to be reached by the American people. This is an opportunity for self-governance. They have spoken with clarity and intensity this year, saying they want us to reopen the door of opportunity to decisionmaking and let them decide. I submit that we must respond to their call; that we must pass a resolution on term limits and thereby let the people decide to enact or reject term limits as they would apply to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, 1994 was a watershed year in America. Our people spoke with a clarity and intensity seldom heard in the halls of politics. Their voices reverberated across the continent like the revolutionary shot heard round the world at Lexington and Concord two centuries ago. The voters' voice was a clarion cry for revolution in Washington, DC--a revolution that returns the right of self-governance to the people. We, the American people, are self governing. We are free people. We have the right to govern ourselves. We have spilt American blood not only across this continent, but around the globe, to preserve our right to self-government. Fifty years ago, to win the Battle of the Bulge, commanders compelled the cooks, the clerks, and the corpsmen to join the front lines and to defend our freedom of self-governance. For victory, all had to fight, all were necessary, none were excluded. Well, we again must invite everyone to join the battle and participate in victory for self- governance. Those of us who were in the trenches of politics this year heard the battle cry for reentry by the public into the public policy arena. The citizens of this Nation are determined to regain the right to participate in their government. They want to reopen the door to self- governance--a door that too often has been slammed in their face. We must not slam it in their face again. The people want the right to self-governance. They want the opportunity to decide on term limits. Some say that the States can decide on term limits, but the courts have struck those statutes down almost uniformly. In one remaining case, the Arkansas case, the Attorney General, the executive branch, has slammed the door in the face of the people, saying they have no right to make such a determination; States and the people have no right to establish term limits, the executive branch says. The judicial branch considering the case is likely to slam the door, as well, saying the people have no right to chart the course of their own future, to establish limits on the terms of those of us who have the privilege of representing the people in making public policy decisions here in Washington. Congress, then, the last remaining branch of Government, holds the key to opening the door of self-governance to the people. Back in 1951, the Congress sent to the American people the opportunity to enact term limits for the President. Congress could not enact them, but it called upon the people to make a judgment to participate in the process of public policy development. Presidential term limits were not imposed by the Congress. The door of decisionmaking was swung wide for the people of this great country to decide whether or not they wanted term limits for the President. Indeed, they did decide; they participated. It was good public policy. They ratified the 22nd amendment. [[Page S1236]] The question is not whether we will provide term limits to America. The question is whether or not we will allow the American people the privilege of participating in public policy determinations, whether we will let the American people decide for themselves whether or not they want term limits for Members of the U.S. Congress. I have a hint about what the American people believe and how they think. Twenty-two States have already overwhelmingly endorsed this concept. And of the States given the opportunity to make such a decision, the people voting in those States almost uniformly and without exception have endorsed the understanding that people should not go to Washington for an entire lifetime, but should go expecting to return from public service. The question then is, will we let the people decide or will we slam the door of self-governance in the face of the American people again? We must let the people decide. It is time for us to acknowledge again the principle of self- governance. Let the people decide. It is time that we trust our people, the people of America, as our forefathers did. Let the people decide. Let us demolish the misleading myth that Congress exists to protect people from themselves. We must instead respect the reality that there is wisdom in the people. We must acknowledge the reality that self- governance is not simply a politically expedient idea, it is, in fact, governmentally beneficial. The people are eager to participate in shaping the tomorrows in which they live and in which all of us work. They are demanding the opportunity to decide whether or not to limit the terms of Members of this body and of the U.S. House of Representatives. As servants of the people, we must pass a resolution on term limits that recognizes that term limits cannot be in the exclusive province of the House or Senate, but this is a decision to be reached by the American people. This is an opportunity for self-governance. They have spoken with clarity and intensity this year, saying they want us to reopen the door of opportunity to decisionmaking and let them decide. I submit that we must respond to their call; that we must pass a resolution on term limits and thereby let the people decide to enact or reject term limits as they would apply to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from Tennessee 7\1/2\ minutes of my time.