[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4405-S4407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO IMPOSE CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I find curious the delay in the 
filing of the Senate report on the constitutional amendment to impose 
congressional term limits. When this matter was first listed on a 
Judiciary Committee agenda back on January 18, our Republican 
colleagues seemed in a tremendous rush to proceed on this matter, one 
of the 100 or so constitutional amendments introduced so far this 
Congress. When the Judiciary Committee voted to report Senate Joint 
Resolution 21 to the Senate back on February 9, the rush continued. The 
fervor seems to have cooled for now here in the Senate. Indeed, it took 
the majority 3 weeks to circulate a draft report. The committee was 
asked last Thursday to reconsider the procedural manner in which the 
resolution was reported, and as far as I can tell, the committee report 
is still yet to be filed.
  I have no problem with the majority putting off consideration of this 
matter, which I oppose. The proposal is, in my view, a limitation on 
the right of the people to choose their representatives. I am concerned 
that our House colleagues will not have the benefit of our views when 
they take up this matter next week.
  Because I have no assurance that the Senate report will be printed 
and available to them in time for their debate, I ask to include in the 
Record my opposition views, which were submitted to be included in the 
committee report back on March 3, and which I hope will appear in the 
Senate report, if and when it is printed.
  The views follow:

  Additional Opposing Views of Senator Patrick Leahy in Opposition to 
   Senate Joint Resolution 21, a Constitutional Amendment To Impose 
                       Congressional Term Limits

       I oppose this constitutional amendment. The Constitution 
     does not set congressional term limits, trusting to the 
     people to decide who will best represent them. Indeed, this 
     proposal is, in essence, a limitation on the rights of the 
     electorate. I reject it as such.
       I urge my colleagues not to be afraid to do the right 
     thing, even if it does not appear from certain polls to be 
     the currently popular thing, and stop demagoguing 
     constitutional amendments as the cure to our ills. Our 
     Constitution has served us well, over more than 200 years. It 
     is the cornerstone of our vibrant democracy. It has been 
     amended only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of 
     Rights in 1791--and two of those were prohibition and its 
     repeal.
       The Constitution is now under attack. The fundamental 
     protections of separation of powers and the First Amendment 
     are under siege. In the opening days of this Congress almost 
     100 constitutional amendments have been introduced. One, the 
     so-called balanced budget amendment, has already been passed 
     by the House and been narrowly defeated in the Senate. We 
     risk making a mockery of Article V's requirement that we deem 
     a constitutional amendment ``necessary'' before proposing it 
     to the states.
       One way to consider the impact of this proposed amendment 
     is to look at who would not be here currently were this 2-
     term limit already part of the Constitution. The 2-term limit 
     contained in S.J. Res. 21 would eliminate all of us who have 
     been returned to the Senate by our constituents after 
     standing for reelection more than once.
       Think for a moment what imposing such a limitation would 
     mean to the Senate. For example, are Senators Thurmond, 
     Hatfield, Stevens, Packwood, Roth, Domenici, Chafee, Lugar, 
     Kassebaum, Cochran, Simpson and Hatch, and Senators Byrd, 
     Pell, Kennedy, Inouye, Hollings, Nunn, Glenn, Ford, Bumpers, 
     Moynihan, Sarbanes, Biden and others not possessed of 
     judgment and experience on which we all rely and on which 
     their constituents depend? What of the Majority Leader, 
     Senator Dole, should he have had to retire in 1980 after 
     serving only two terms?
       Consider what this type of measure would have meant over 
     our history. Those who have served beyond two terms include 
     among their ranks some of our most distinguished 
     predecessors. Each of our Senate Office Buildings, in fact, 
     is named for a Senator whose service would have been cut 
     short by the type of term limit being proposed as a 
     constitutional amendment: Richard Russell, Philip Hart, 
     Everett McKinley Dirksen. It is a loss when illness takes 
     such leaders from us; it would be a tragedy to have denied 
     the country and their constituents their service through an 
     arbitrary rule limiting congressional terms.
       Think about Kentucky's Henry Clay; South Carolina's John C. 
     Calhoun; Missouri's Thomas Hart Benton; Ohio's Robert Taft; 
     Iowa's William Allison; Michigan's Arthur Vandenberg; 
     Arizona's Carl Hayden and Barry Goldwater; Maine's Margaret 
     Chase Smith and George Mitchell; Vermont's Justin Morrill and 
     George Aiken; Massachusetts' Daniel Webster and Charles 
     Sumner; Montana's Mike Mansfield; Washington's Scoop Jackson; 
     North Carolina's Sam Ervin; Arkansas's William Fulbright; New 
     York's Jacob Javits; Wisconsin's William Proxmire and the 
     LaFollettes; Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey; Tennessee's 
     Howard Baker, Jr. Such lists invariably leave out many who 
     distinguished themselves through their service into a third 
     Senate term.
       Voters have not had any trouble electing challengers in the 
     last several years. In 1978, 1980 and 1986, numbers of 
     incumbents were defeated in primaries and general elections 
     for the United States Senate. From the last election, one-
     third of those elected
      to the Senate are serving in their first terms. In the House 
     of Representatives fully one third of the Members are 
     beginning their first or second terms. The electorate does 
     not seem to have a problem deciding whom to elect and whom 
     not to reelect.
       Indeed, rather than debating a constitutional amendment to 
     impose term limits, our time might be better spent thinking 
     about why more and more of our respected colleagues are 
     choosing to abandon this body. Our friend from Colorado, the 
     Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, has already 
     announced that he will not seek reelection in 1996, after 
     five terms in the House but only one here in the Senate. The 
     senior Senator from Illinois, the Ranking Democrat on the 
     Constitution Subcommittee, has also announced that he will 
     not seek reelection after five terms in the House and two 
     terms here in the Senate. The distinguished Ranking Democrat 
     on the Energy Committee, the senior Senator from Louisiana 
     has announced his intention to return to Louisiana.
       Last year, George Mitchell and a total of nine of our 
     colleagues in the 103rd Congress chose not to seek 
     reelection. The Congress has become less and less a place 
     where Members choose to run for reelection.
       I respect my colleagues for doing what they think is right 
     for themselves and their families. I commend those who like 
     Hank Brown and our freshman colleagues believe strongly in 
     term limits and conform their own actions to that rule. I 
     urge them, however, to stop short of seeking to impose their 
     view on all others and upon all other States for all time by 
     way of this constitutional amendment.
       The reality is that this is an institution that is called 
     upon to deal with many important and complex matters, where 
     judgment and experience do count for something. Some sense of 
     history and some expertise can, from time to time, be helpful 
     in confronting our tasks and fulfilling our responsibilities 
     to our constituents and the country. Thus, I do not believe 
     that a one-size-fits-all limit on congressional service makes 
     sense.
       Further, as the representative of a small State, I am 
     acutely aware that we fulfill the purposes of the Senate and 
     sometimes best represent our States when we have a bit of 
     seniority and a track record on the issues. I believe, as did 
     our Founders, that it is up to the people to let us know if 
     we seek to overstay our term of service.
       Before we embark on this course to rewrite the work of the 
     Founders and impose an artificial limit on the length of 
     congressional service, we should know what evil this 
     constitutional amendment is intended to reach? On this the 
     proponents speak in conflicting voices--some urging that term 
     limits will make us more responsive to the electorate
      [[Page S4406]] and others arguing that it will give us 
     greater distance and independence from them. Which is it?
       It is remarkable that while the majority's rhetorical 
     flourishes raise to new heights the mythological citizen-
     legislator and the majority report discusses everything from 
     Aristotle, ancient Greece and term limit suggestions that 
     were rejected by the Founders in the ``final draft of the 
     Constitution,'' to bills, amendments and resolutions not 
     considered by the Judiciary Committee, it nowhere discusses--
     let alone justifies--the specific congressional term limits 
     it seeks to impose. The sole hearing into this matter was 
     focussed in large part on proponents arguing that a 6-term 
     limit for the House was ``no limit at all'' and that to 
     include such a provision in this measure amounted to ``phony 
     term limits,'' since 12 years is longer than the average term 
     of service in the House. Nowhere in its long-delayed report 
     does the majority discuss Senator Kyl's amendment to double 
     the House term limits from three to six terms, hint at the 
     controversy surrounding this key, substantive provision, nor 
     indicate that it would invalidate limits adopted in over 20 
     states.
       Further, the majority gives no consideration to the 
     effectiveness of limiting terms of only one group of actors 
     in our political democracy. Will we also limit the tenure of 
     professional staff? Will we limit the number of years someone 
     may lobby the Congress? Why not limit the years that someone 
     can serve as a political consultant, a pollster, or an 
     adviser? Are we prepared to venture into campaign reform and 
     limit the number of times a person may contribute to Senate 
     races over time? If not, term limits on candidates will only 
     serve to increase the influence of these other groups at the 
     expense of the people.
       Do we expect first-term Senators intent on reelection to be 
     less responsive to lobbyists and political consultants? For 
     those who succeed in being reelected to a second and final 
     term, will they be oblivious of the need to earn a living in 
     succeeding years? With no prospect for a career in public 
     service, Members of Congress may become more solicitous of 
     ``special interests'' as they look beyond their lame duck 
     status to new career opportunities.
       Despite good intentions, this proposed constitutional 
     amendment would not give us a citizen-legislature but, 
     instead, a legislature made up of those independently wealthy 
     and capable of taking 12 years from building a career outside 
     this body to serve as philosopher-kings for a time.
       I must oppose what I perceive to be a growing fascination 
     with laying waste to our Constitution and the protections 
     that have served us well for over 200 years. The First 
     Amendment, separation of powers, the power of the purse, the 
     right of the people to elect their representatives should be 
     supported and defended. That is the oath that we all swore 
     when we entered this public service. That is our duty to 
     those who forged this great document, our commitment to our 
     constituents and our legacy to those who will succeed us.
       The Constitution should not be amended by sound bite. This 
     proposed limitation evidences a distrust not just of 
     congressional representatives but of those who sent us here, 
     the people. Term limits would restrict the freedom of the 
     electorate to choose and are based on disdain for their 
     unfettered judgment. These are not so much term limits on the 
     electorate to choose their representatives.
       To those who argue that this proposal will embolden us or 
     provide us added independence because we will not be 
     concerned about reelection, I would argue that you are 
     turning our democracy on its head. This proposal has the 
     effect of eliminating accountability, not increasing it.
       It is precisely when we stand for reelection that the 
     people, our constituents, have the opportunity to hold us 
     accountable. This proposal would eliminate that 
     accountability by removing opportunities for the people to 
     reaffirm or reject our representation of them. It would make 
     each of us a lame duck immediately upon reelection.
       Thus, my fundamental objection to the proposed 
     constitutional amendment is this: It is, at base, distrustful 
     of the electorate. It does not limit candidates so much as it 
     limits the rights of the people to choose whoever they want 
     to represent them. We should be acting to legislate more 
     responsively and responsibly, not to close off elections by 
     making some candidates off limits to voters. I will put my 
     faith in the people of Vermont and keep faith with them to 
     uphold the Constitution.


                            Leahy Amendment

       When this matter reaches the Senate for debate, I intend to 
     offer an amendment, along the lines of the one that I offered 
     during the course of the Judiciary Committee's deliberations. 
     I will try to move us toward an honest discussion of what 
     this amendment would mean and what impact it would have on 
     Congress. When politicians talk about imposing term limits, 
     they tend to support proposals that, on examination, will not 
     affect them. Thus, I have pointed out that S.J. Res. 21 is 
     drafted so as not to affect adversely any of us.
       This proposal is designed to become effective after the 
     ratification process, which may itself take seven years. 
     Thereafter, and only thereafter, are we to start counting 
     terms in office for purposes of these constitutional term 
     limits. Thus, this proposal is drafted so that some of us can 
     get in two more successful reelection campaigns before we 
     have even to start counting terms toward the 2-term limit. I 
     suspect that all of us expect to be ``former'' Senators in 
     2020 after as many as four more
      terms, anyway. That is all that this amendment contemplates.
       By contrast, my amendment will have the affect of making 
     these constitutionally-mandated congressional term limits 
     apply to each of us immediately upon ratification. Thus, the 
     2-term limit would apply to each of us then currently 
     serving. Those of us serving in our second term, or greater, 
     would be able to serve out the remainder of that term. Those 
     in their first term in the Senate at the time of ratification 
     would be able to run for reelection, once.
       As I noted in the course of the Judiciary Committee's 
     deliberations, my amendment would conform the congressional 
     term limits amendment to the transition rule adopted in the 
     22nd Amendment, which imposed term limits on the President. 
     The 22nd Amendment provides that it would ``not prevent any 
     person who may be holding the office of President, or acting 
     as President, during the term within which this Article 
     becomes operative from holding the office of President or 
     acting as President during the remainder of such term.'' The 
     22nd Amendment did not say that the President serving at the 
     time of ratification could be elected to two more, 4-year 
     terms. It is noteworthy that this precedent continues to be 
     ignored by the majority.
       As reported, S.J. Res. 21 includes language in section 3 
     intended to provide special privileges to those Members who 
     are serving at the time of ratification. Thus, all prior and 
     current service is to be disregarded and Members serving at 
     the time of ratification are to be accorded the prospect of 
     two additional 6-year Senate terms and six additional 2-year 
     House terms, regardless of the number of prior terms in the 
     Senate or House. Rather than have the constitutional 
     amendment eligibility limitations apply to everyone, S.J. 
     Res. 21 is drafted so that Members serving at the time of 
     ratification would be accorded the special privilege of being 
     able to complete their current terms and then start over, 
     counting from zero, with respect to elections and service 
     toward term limits. This is, in the words of a member of the 
     Committee who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment 
     ``transparent hypocrisy.''
       A few examples indicate the unfairness of these special 
     privileges:
       Senators elected after ratification would be locked into 
     inferior status in terms of seniority, chairmanships, 
     committee assignments and staff allocations. By contrast, 
     Senators serving now and at the time of ratification would 
     have their seniority preserved and protected.
       A Senator elected one day before ratification would be able 
     to serve three full 6-year terms before the limits took 
     effect.
       A Senator first elected in 1990 could run for reelection to 
     a second term in 1996, run successfully for a third term in 
     2002, see the ratification process subsequently completed in
      2003, finish out the third term in 2008 and still be 
     reelected to two more full terms through 2020 before being 
     affected by any term limits. At the same time a new 
     Senator first elected in 2004 would be restricted to two 
     terms and be barred from serving past 2016. Thus, the 
     older Senator would be able to serve four years past the 
     forced retirement of the newer and for a total of 18 years 
     more than the newer Senator.
       Senators voting for the amendment ought to be willing to 
     bind themselves to its terms and not just to bind others who 
     follow in their footsteps. Yet during the Judiciary Committee 
     markup, the following Senators voted for this popular 
     proposal and against my amendment to have it apply to them 
     fully upon ratification: Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, Grassley, 
     Brown, Thompson, DeWine, Kyl and Abraham.
       The amendment I will propose to the Senate will strike 3 
     and its language excluding elections and service occurring 
     before final ratification from the calculation of the term 
     limits being imposed. Instead, the amendment will expressly 
     provide that the term limits being imposed by the 
     constitutional amendment would apply to Members serving at 
     ratification.
       In order to avoid a retroactive effect or canceling the 
     results of a completed election, the amendment will allow 
     Members serving at the time of ratification to complete their 
     current term. The prohibition in the proposed constitutional 
     amendment would then operate prospectively to forbid any 
     Member serving a term at or beyond the term limit being 
     imposed from seeking reelection.
       The amendment will also be intended to remove the ambiguity 
     created by language included in Section 1, which begins: 
     ``After this article becomes operative, no person. * * *'' 
     Unless stricken, this language might be interpreted to exempt 
     Members of Congress serving before ratification from the 
     effect of the constitutional amendment entirely. At the 
     least, the language implies that the eligibility of those 
     Members of Congress serving at ratification is intended to be 
     determined by consciously disregarding their current and past 
     elections and service.
       Unless stricken this language could create a special class 
     of Members and grant them special privilege from the full 
     effect of the constitutional amendment at the moment that it 
     is ratified. The irony is that many of the very Members who 
     vote to impose term
 [[Page S4407]] limits on others elected in the future would secure for 
themselves special dispensation so that they may serve either an 
unlimited number of terms or as many terms as can be begun before final 
ratification plus an additional two terms in the Senate and an 
additional six terms in the House.
       The effect on my amendment will be that upon ratification 
     of this constitutional amendment to impose congressional term 
     limits, our current terms of service will be considered. This 
     is in keeping with the substance of the amendment and would 
     give it full effect upon ratification, rather than waiting 
     for another 12 to as many as 20 years before it takes effect. 
     If constitutionally-mandated congressional term limits are 
     necessary to solve an important problem, then why should the 
     amendment to the Constitution exclude the very situation that 
     it is being proposed to correct? We should not provide 
     ourselves with special privileges and adopt rules for the 
     next generation of Members. ``Grandfathering'' or 
     ``grandparenting'' ourselves from the full effects of this 
     amendment is not any way to proceed, if it is the will of the 
     Congress and the States that we should proceed.
     

                          ____________________