[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1004-S1008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 231. A bill to modify the boundaries of Walnut Canyon National
Monument in the State of Arizona; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
THE WALNUT CANYON NATIONAL MONUMENT BOUNDARY MODIFICATION ACT OF 1995
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleague from
Arizona, Senator John McCain, the Walnut Canyon National Monument
Boundary Modification Act of 1995. Identical legislation is being
introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative J.D.
Hayworth.
This legislation is based upon consensus reached last year among
interested parties, including local officials in Arizona, as well as
residents of the Walnut Canyon area, the National Park Service and U.S.
Forest Service, with respect to modification of the monument boundaries
for the purpose of better protecting important archeological resources.
Walnut Canyon National Monument was originally established by
Presidential proclamation in 1915 to preserve and protect numerous
Sinaguan cliff dwelling and associated sites. The canyon includes five
areas where archeological sites are concentrated around natural
promontories extending into the canyon, areas which early archeologists
referred to as forts. Three of the five forts are within the current
boundaries of the monument, but the two others are located on adjacent
lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The legislation I am
introducing today would redraw the monument boundaries to include those
areas and provided the protection that those resources need and
deserve.
About 1,239 acres of forest land would be transferred to Park Service
administration. No State or private land would be affected.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 231
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Walnut Canyon National
Monument Boundary Modification Act of 1995''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) Walnut Canyon National Monument was established for the
preservation and interpretation of certain settlements and
land use patterns associated with the prehistoric Sinaguan
culture of northern Arizona.
(2) Major cultural resources associated with the purposes
of Walnut Canyon National Monument are near the boundary and
are currently managed under multiple-use objectives of the
adjacent national forest. These concentrations of cultural
resources, often referred to as ``forts'', would be more
effectively managed as part of the National Park System.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to modify the
boundaries of the Walnut Canyon National Monument (hereafter
in this Act referred to as the ``national monument'') to
improve management of the national monument and associated
resources.
SEC. 3. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.
Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, the
boundaries of the national monument shall be modified as
depicted on the map entitled ``Boundary Proposal--Walnut
Canyon National Monument, Coconino County, Arizona'',
numbered 360/80,011, and dated September 1994. Such map shall
be on file and available for public inspection in the offices
of the Director of the National Park Service, Department of
the Interior.
SEC. 4. ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire
lands and interest in lands within the national monument, by
donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or
exchange. Federal property within the boundaries of the
national monument (as modified by this Act) is hereby
transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior for management as part of the
national monument. Federal property excluded from the
monument pursuant to the boundary modification under section
3 is hereby transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of
the Secretary of Agriculture to be managed as part of the
Coconino National Forest.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director
of the National Park Service, shall manage the national
monument in accordance with this Act and the provisions of
law generally applicable to units of the National Park
Service, including ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'' approved August 25, 1916
(39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4).
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
______
By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Bond):
S. 232. A bill to provide for the extension of the Farmers Home
Administration program under section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 and
other programs relating to housing and community development; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
THE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION SECTION 515 RURAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT OF 1995
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with
my colleagues Senators Sarbanes and Bond, the Farmers Home
Administration Section 515 Rural Multifamily Housing Program Extension
Act of 1995. The Section 515 Program, now administered by the Rural
Housing and Community Development Service [RHCDS] at the Department of
Agriculture, is an important rural affordable housing program. It
provides long-term, low interest rate direct government loans for
nonprofit and for-profit developers to develop multifamily rental
housing for low-income families in rural America. Moreover, this
program is one of the few sources for low-income rental housing in
rural America, with over 440,000 rental units in rural America to its
credit.
This simple legislation permanently reauthorizes the Section 515
Program and allows RHCDS to administer $220 million in funding
appropriated as part of the HUD/VA fiscal year 1995 appropriations
bill. While providing funding
[[Page S1005]] for projects in the section 515 pipeline, it also will
help with pressing rehabilitation needs. In addition, this bill enjoys
strong bipartisan support and deserves quick action to help ensure the
availability of low-income affordable housing in rural America.
This program is of particular importance to my State, New York. Many
people may not realize that New York is a very rural State, with a
large number of persons below the poverty line living in rural areas.
Of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers below the poverty line,
one-third live in rural communities. This program has been of great
assistance to working families and the elderly who live in rural areas.
There are currently 473 section 515 developments with 12,281 units in
New York. Nearly 7,000 of these units are reserved for elderly citizens
and 4,500 units are used by families. There is approximately a 4-year
pipeline of projects in New York that are awaiting funding.
Reauthorization of this program will help address this backlog in New
York, as well as nationwide.
The Section 515 Program has received widespread support. In addition
to helping working families and the elderly obtain rental housing in
rural areas, the program has provided construction and management
employment opportunities. These jobs are desperately needed in States,
such as New York, with rural areas that have been hit hard
economically.
I know there have been some concerns in recent years about possible
program abuses in the Section 515 Program. In response to these
concerns, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 made a
number of reforms to ensure that developers would not be receiving
unreasonable or windfall profits. The Department of Agriculture,
through Farmers Home and RHCDS, has also been implementing a series of
regulatory reforms to combat fraud and abuse in the Section 515
Program. Moreover, I expect that all rural housing programs, including
the Section 515 Program, will be included in this Congress' overall
reform of Federal housing policy.
Finally, this legislation provides the Department of Housing and
Urban Development with authority to renew, for up to 18 months, certain
section 8 project-based contracts on terms identical to the current
contract. This is a temporary provision. Section 8 contract renewals
will be a major part of any housing reform considered by Congress this
year.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Section 515 Rural
Multifamily Housing Program Extension Act of 1995''.
SEC. 2. RURAL HOUSING.
(a) Underserved Areas Set-Aside.--Section 509(f)(4)(A) of
the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1479(f)(4)(A)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``fiscal years 1993
and 1994'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1995''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``each''.
(b) Rural Multifamily Rental Housing.--Section 515(b) of
the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (4); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively.
(c) Rural Rental Housing Funds for Non-profit Entities.--
The first sentence of section 515(w)(1) of the Housing Act of
1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485(w)(1)) is amended by striking ``fiscal
years 1993 and 1994'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1995''.
SEC. 3. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXPIRING SECTION 8 CONTRACTS.
(a) Requirement.--Subject only to the availability of
budget authority to carry out this section, not later than
October 1, 1995, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall make an offer to the owner of each housing
project assisted under an expiring contract to extend the
term of the expiring contract for not more than 18 months
beyond the date of the expiration of the contract.
(b) Terms of Extension.--Except for terms or conditions
relating to duration, the terms and conditions under an
extension provided pursuant to this section of any expiring
contract shall be identical to the terms and conditions under
the expiring contract.
(c) Definition of Expiring Contract.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``expiring contract'' means a contract for
assistance pursuant to section 8(b)(2) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as such section existed before October
1, 1983), including a contract for assistance referred to in
section 209(b) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
1983, having a term that expires before October 1, 1996.
(d) Displacement Assistance.--The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development may make available to tenants residing in
units covered by an expiring contract that is not extended
pursuant to this section, either--
(1) tenant-based assistance under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937; or
(2) a unit with respect to which project-based assistance
is provided under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my
colleagues from the Banking Committee as an original cosponsor of this
legislation.
The bill we are introducing today would extend the rural rental
housing program authorized under section 515 of the Housing Act of
1949. This program, now administered by the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service [RHCDS] at the Department of Agriculture, is a
valuable and critical source of funding for the development of
affordable housing for low-income families who live in rural areas. The
legislation is needed because the authorization for the Section 515
Program expired at the beginning of this fiscal year. The
Appropriations Act provided $220 million for this program. With this
authorization, the RHCDS will be able to address pressing needs for the
rehabilitation and preservation of existing housing, as well as provide
funding for a large pipeline of worthwhile projects. I am particularly
pleased that this bill also extends two important features of the
Section 515 Program--a set-aside for nonprofit developers and a set-
aside for underserved areas.
The bill we are introducing today will also provide the Secretary of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] with the
authority to extend the section 8 contracts on low-income housing
projects whose subsidy contracts will expire before October 1, 1996.
Under the current section 8 contracts, owners must provide their
tenants with a 12-month notice before the expiration of the subsidy
contract. The contracts on a relatively small number of projects
nationwide will expire in the next 12 months or the owners of the
projects will be required to provide notice in the next 12 months. It
is important to note, Mr. President, that this provision is temporary
and the extension of the contracts cannot exceed 18 months. The
provision's inclusion in this legislation will give the Administration
and the Congress time to review the Section 8 Program and examine long-
term strategies for dealing with contract expirations, without causing
uncertainty for residents or the inadvertent displacement of low-income
households who reside in section 8 developments.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I support the Farmers Home
Administration Section 515 Rural Multifamily Housing Program Extension
Act of 1995. The Section 515 Program, now administered by the Rural
Housing and Community Development Service [RHCDS] at the Department of
Agriculture, is an important program that makes multifamily rental
housing available for low-income families in rural America. I emphasize
the importance of this program. Since the program's inception in 1963,
section 515 has financed some 440,000 affordable, low-income rental
units in rural America.
This legislation permanently reauthorizes the Section 515 Program and
allows RHCDS to administer $220 million in funding appropriated as part
of the HUD/VA fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill. I believe the
fiscal year 1995 $220 million appropriation provides adequate authority
for RHCDS to administer the Section 515 Program. Nevertheless, RHCDS
refused to administer this program without a new reauthorization.
Therefore, I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation. I
emphasize that this bill enjoys strong bipartisan support and industry
support. I ask for quick consideration of this bill to help ensure the
continued availability of low-income affordable housing in rural
America.
Moreover, I want to rest the concerns of my colleagues about reported
problems with the Section 515 Program. In response to past concerns,
the Housing
[[Page S1006]] and Community Development Act of 1992 made a number of
important reforms to the program, including reforms to safeguard the
program from unscrupulous developers. The Department of Agriculture,
through Farmers Home and RHCDS, has also recently put in place a number
of additional needed regulatory reforms. Finally, I expect all rural
housing programs, including the Section 515 Program, to be part of a
major housing policy overhaul during this Congress.
This bill also allows the Department of Housing and Urban Development
to extend, for up to 18 months, certain expiring section 8 project-
based contracts. These contracts can only be renewed on terms identical
to the current contracts. This is a stop-gap measure designed to
provide some certainty to the section 8 project-based programs as
Congress considers major reforms to address the cost and designs of
these programs. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr.
Campbell, and Mr. Exon):
S. J. Res. 18. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution relative to contributions and expenditures intended to
affect elections for Federal, State, and local office; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
CAMPAIGN REFORM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem with
which we are all too familiar--the ever-increasing cost of campaign
spending. The need for limits on campaign expenditures is more urgent
than ever, with the total cost of congressional campaigns skyrocketing
from $446 million in 1990 to well over $590 million in 1994. For nearly
a quarter of a century, Congress has tried to tackle runaway campaign
spending; again and again, Congress has failed.
Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past campaign finance
reform efforts, which have bogged down in partisanship as Democrats and
Republicans each tried to gore the other's sacred cows. During the 103d
Congress there was a sign that we could move beyond this partisan
bickering, when the Senate in a bipartisan fashion expressed its
support for a limit on campaign expenditures. In May 1993, a nonbinding
sense-of-the-Senate resolution was agreed to which advocated the
adoption of a constitutional amendment empowering Congress and the
States to limit campaign expenditures. During the 104th Congress, let
us take the next step and adopt such a constitutional amendment--a
simple, straightforward, nonpartisan solution.
As Prof. Gerald G. Ashdown has written in the New England Law Review,
amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign
expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches-
to-reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in
Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance
atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could
constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals,
candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the
troubles * * * would be eliminated.''
Right to the point, in its landmark 1976 ruling in Buckley versus
Valeo, the Supreme Court mistakenly equated a candidate's right to
spend unlimited sums of money with his right to free speech. In the
face of spirited dissents, the Court drew a bizarre distinction between
campaign contributions on the grounds that `` * * * the governmental
interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption
outweighs considerations of free speech.''
I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental
interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption--
does not overwhelmingly justify limits on campaign spending. However,
it seems to me that the Court committed a far graver error by striking
down spending limits as a threat to free speech. The fact is, spending
limits in Federal campaigns would act to restore the free speech that
has been eroded by the Buckley decision.
After all, as a practical reality, what Buckley says is: Yes, if you
have personal wealth, then you have access to television, you have
freedom of speech. But if you do not have personal wealth, then you are
denied access to television. Instead of freedom of speech, you have
only the freedom to shut up.
So let us be done with this phony charge that spending limits are
somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White points
out, clear as a bell, in his dissent, both contribution
limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content of speech and
are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech
in general.
Mr. President, every Senator realizes that television advertising is
the name of the game in modern American politics. In warfare, if you
control the air, you control the battlefield. In politics, if you
control the airwaves, you control the tenor and focus of a campaign.
Probably 80 percent of campaign communications take place through the
medium of television. And most of that TV airtime comes at a dear
price. In South Carolina, you are talking between $1000 and $2,000 for
30 seconds of primetime advertising. In New York City, it is anywhere
from $30,000 to $40,000 for the same 30 seconds.
The hard fact of life for a candidate is that if you are not on TV,
you are not truly in the race. Wealthy challengers as well as
incumbents flushed with money go directly to the TV studio. Those
without personal wealth are sidetracked to the time-consuming pursuit
of cash.
The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on
campaign contributions, but struck down restrictions on how much
candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical
reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I
have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of his speech. By
failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear
unwilling to speak up in his own defense.
Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent
to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend,
Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate
with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a
significant head start.''
Indeed, Justice Marshall went further: He argued that by upholding
the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall
spending, the Court put on additional premium on a candidate's personal
wealth.
Justice Marshall was dead right. Our urgent task is to right the
injustice of Buckley versus Valeo by empowering Congress to place caps
on Federal campaign spending. We are all painfully aware of the
uncontrolled escalation of campaign spending. The average cost of a
winning Senate race was $1.2 million in 1980, rising to $2.1 million in
1984, and skyrocketing to $3.1 million in 1986, $3.7 million in 1988,
and up to $4.1 million this past year. To raise that kind of money, the
average Senator must raise over $13,200 a week, every week of his or
her 6-year term. Overall spending in congressional races increased from
$403 million in 1990 to more than $590 million in 1994--almost a 50-
percent increase in 4 short years.
This obsession with money distracts us from the people's business. At
worst, it corrupts and degrades the entire political process.
Fundraisers used to be arranged so they didn't conflict with the Senate
schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted to
accommodate fundraisers.
I have run for statewide office 16 times in South Carolina. You
establish a certain campaign routine, say, shaking hands at a mill
shift in Greer, visiting a bid country store outside of Belton, and so
on. Over the years, they look for you and expect you to come around.
But in recent years, those mill visits and dropping by the country
store have become a casualty of the system. There is very little time
for them. We are out chasing dollars.
During my 1986 reelection campaign, I found myself raising money to
get on TV to raise money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV. It
is a vicious cycle.
After the election, I held a series of town meetings across the
State. Friends asked, ``Why are you doing these down meetings: You just
got elected. You've got 6 years.'' To which I answered, ``I'm doing it
because it's my first chance to really get out and meet with the people
who elected me. I didn't get much of a chance during the
[[Page S1007]] campaign. I was too busy chasing bucks.'' I had a
similar experience in 1992.
I remember Senator Richard Russell saying: ``They give you a 6-year
term in this U.S. Senate 2 years to be a statesman, the next 2 years to
be a politician, and the last 2 years to be a demagogue.'' Regrettably,
we are no longer afforded even 2 years as statesmen. We proceed
straight to politics and demagoguery right after the election because
of the imperatives of raising money.
My proposed constitutional amendment would change all this. It would
empower Congress to impose reasonable spending limits on Federal
campaigns. For instance, we could impose a limit of, say, $800,000 per
Senate candidate in a small State like South Carolina--a far cry from
the millions spent by my opponent and me in 1992. And bear in mind that
direct expenditures account for only a portion of total spending. For
instance, my 1992 opponent's direct expenditures were supplemented by
hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures by independent
organizations and by the State and local Republican Party. When you
total up spending from all sources, my challenger and I spent roughly
the same amount in 1992.
And incidentally, Mr. President, let's be done with the canard that
spending limits would be a boon to incumbents, who supposedly already
have name recognition and standing with the public and therefore begin
with a built-in advantage over challengers. Nonsense. I hardly need to
remind my Senate colleagues of the high rate of mortality in upper
Chamber elections. And as to the alleged invulnerability of incumbents
in the House, I would simply note that more than 50 percent of the
House membership has been replaced since the 1990 elections.
I can tell you from experience that any advantages of incumbency are
more than counterbalanced by the obvious disadvantages of incumbency,
specifically the disadvantage of defending hundreds of controversial
votes in Congress.
I also agree with University of Virginia political scientist Larry
Sabato, who has suggested a doctrine of sufficiency with regard to
campaign spending. Professor Sabato puts it this way: ``While
challengers tend to be underfunded, they can compete
effectively if they are capable and have sufficient money to present
themselves and their messages.''
Moreover, Mr. President, I submit that once we have overall spending
limits, it will matter little whether a candidate gets money from
industry groups, or from PAC's, or from individuals. It is still a
reasonable--``sufficient,'' to use Professor Sabato's term--amount any
way you cut it. Spending will be under control, and we will be able to
account for every dollar going out.
On the issue of PAC's, Mr. President, let me say that I have never
believed that PAC's per se are an evil in the current system. On the
contrary, PAC's are a very healthy instrumentality of politics. PAC's
have brought people into the political process: nurses, educators,
small businesspeople, senior citizens, unionists, you name it. They
permit people of modest means and limited individual influence to band
together with others of mutual interest so their message is heard and
known.
For years we have encouraged these people to get involved, to
participate. Yet now that they are participating, we turn around and
say, ``Oh, no, your influence is corrupting, your money is tainted.''
This is wrong. The evil to be corrected is not the abundance of
participation but the superabundance of money. The culprit is runaway
campaign spending.
To a distressing degree, elections are determined not in the
political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections
are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate
into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of
corporations and special interests.
Mr. President, I repeat, campaign spending must be brought under
control. The constitutional amendment I have proposed would permit
Congress to impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal
campaign expenditures.
Such a reform would have four important impacts. First, it would end
the mindless pursuits of ever-fatter campaign war chests. Second, it
would free candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and
allow them to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office,
we would not have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep
our seats. Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And
fourth, it would create a more level playing field for our Federal
campaigns--a competitive environment where personal wealth does not
give candidates an insurmountable advantage.
Finally, Mr. President, a word about the advantages of the amend-the-
Constitution approach that I propose. Recent history amply demonstrates
the practicality and viability of this constitutional route. Certainly,
it is not coincidence that all five of the most recent amendments to
the Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. In elections,
the process drives and shapes the end result. Election laws can skew
election results, whether you are talking about a poll tax depriving
minorities of their right to vote, or the absence of campaign spending
limits giving an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. These are
profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy, and it is
entirely appropriate that they be addressed through constitutional
amendment.
And let us not be distracted by the argument that the amend-the-
Constitution approach will take too long. Take too long? We have been
dithering on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970's, and we
haven't advanced the ball a single yard. It has been a quarter of a
century, and no legislative solution has done the job.
The last five constitutional amendments took an average of 17 months
to be adopted. There is no reason why we cannot pass this joint
resolution, submit it to the States for a vote, and ratify the
amendment in time for it to govern the 1996 election. Indeed, the
amend-the-Constitution approach could prove more expeditious than the
alternative legislative approach. Bear in mind that the various public
financing bills that have been proposed would all be vulnerable to a
Presidential veto. In contrast, this joint resolution, once passed by
the Congress, goes directly to the States for ratification. Once
ratified, it becomes the law of the land, and it is not subject to veto
or Supreme Court challenge.
And, by the way, I reject the argument that if we were to pass and
ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be unable to
hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign expenditure
limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did exactly that
in 1974, and we can certainly do it again.
Mr. President, this joint resolution will address the campaign
finance mess directly, decisively, and with finality. The Supreme Court
has chosen to ignore the overwhelming importance of media advertising
in today's campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it prescribed a bogus
if-you-have-the-money-you-can-talk version of free speech. In its
place, I urge passage of this joint resolution, the freedom of speech
in political campaigns amendment. Let us ensure equal freedom of
expression for all who seek Federal office.
______
By Mr. BROWN:
S.J. Res. 19. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to limiting congressional
terms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
term limits constitutional amendment
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I rise to offer a joint
resolution calling for the adoption of a constitutional amendment
limiting congressional terms.
Congress is considering several measures that will change the way
Congress does business. Congressional accountability will apply the
laws to Congress. Unfunded mandate reform will reduce burdens on the
States. The balanced budget amendment will fundamentally alter our
budget process, and the line-item veto will end an era of midnight
pork-barrel spending.
My amendment offers change of a different sort. Instead of changing
our procedures, term limitations will change the way we think.
[[Page S1008]] Following ratification of term limits, politicians
would no longer view Congress as a lifetime career. The era of constant
campaigning and the shortsighted policy making that comes with it would
come to an end. Incumbent advantages would be limited. Elections would
become more competitive. Voters would have a wider electoral choice as
more and more people run for office. Instead of making political
choices to preserve their seats, Members would be more likely to make
the tough choices necessary to preserve our Nation.
When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they limited
Government by disbursing power between the branches of Government.
Checks and balances were created to provide oversight amongst the
branches, and to ensure that Government remained loyal to the people,
all other powers were specifically reserved for the people.
Over 80 percent of Americans favor limiting congressional terms; 22
of 23 initiative States have passed term limits for their Federal
delegations and the 23d State should pass term limits this year.
Despite this overwhelming support, this body has voted on term limits
only three times this century. Even worse, term limits has never made
it to the floor of the House of Representatives. I was responsible for
initiating two of the three votes in the Senate. The first time we
received 30 votes, the second time 39 voted with us.
It is now time for the whole of Congress to answer the call of the
people. The success of grass roots groups is impressive but incomplete.
Congress must act to bring term limits to the millions of Americans
whose wishes for a citizen legislature have been ignored at the State
level.
My amendment would impose term limits on all Members of Congress.
Senators would be limited to serving no more than two consecutive 6-
year terms and Representatives would be limited to six consecutive 2-
year terms.
Only elections following the amendment's ratification would be
counted, and appointments and special elections would be excluded from
the limits.
Mr. President, it is time we return to the fundamental belief of our
Founders--that holding public office is a public service, not a
lifetime career.
Term limits will restore the competition, responsiveness, and
diversity intended by the Framers of the Constitution and demanded by
our constituents.
____________________