[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.


                          ____________________