[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15085-S15087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY [LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2915

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding consideration of 
        a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the debate on sanctions against Castro's 
Cuba is an important one. But so is the issue for which I rise today.
  It had been my understanding--and the understanding of most term-
limits advocates--that the Senate would be devoting all of today and 
Friday to the issue of term limits for Members of Congress.
  But that is not the case--the debate and vote have been delayed. I 
believe this delay to be a mistake, and today I look to establish a 
record of support for term limits through a simply-worded sense-of-the-
Senate resolution.
  This amendment will state a single, simple idea--that the Senate 
should pass term limits. It is an important 

[[Page S 15086]]
signal that the Senate is a new and different body than it was just 10 
months ago.
  The results will not be binding, but they will be revealing. This 
vote will show the American people, who supports term limits and who 
does not. That is important, for identifying support now is vital to 
achieving victory later.
  Last fall, the American people sent a message as strong as it was 
clear: They said they wanted politicians to seek fundamental change in 
the way that Washington works and the way that Washington looks. And 
they entrusted Republicans to initiate those changes.
  No issue is more symbolic of changing Washington than term limits--
they are the foundation of the people's agenda. That is why efforts to 
again delay the first-ever vote on term limits are so disturbing.
  The delay on term limits sends the wrong message at the wrong time. 
With Ross Perot experiencing yet another political rebirth; with trust 
for Congress at another all-time low; with voter anger at record highs; 
what the American people want to see are real efforts at reform. This 
attempted delay signals the admission of defeat before a fight. That is 
not the kind of message we should be sending.

  The American people are expressing serious reservations about our 
ability to get things done. We must show them that we have not given 
up.
  The American people want us to fight on term limits. As you can see, 
Americans in 23 States have fought for term limits. Those States can be 
seen on the map behind me in red. States with more than 100 million 
people have voted on and passed term limits, surely 100 U.S. Senators 
can find the time to register their views on this issue.
  Why are term limits so important? Because they are our last, best 
hope to change a fundamentally corrupt system. In this reform, the 
American people see the possibility of reining in congressional power 
by restoring competitive elections--franking, fundraising, and so 
forth; reinstituting congressional accountability--turnover, and so 
forth; reinvigorating a Congress that's lost touch--new ideas, new 
people, and so forth.
  Unfortunately, the people's clear will is in direct conflict with the 
National Government's rulings.
  A year ago, the Clinton administration argued before the Supreme 
Court that term limits were unconstitutional.
  On May 23, in U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton, the Supreme Court 
agreed with the Clinton administration and denied the people of America 
the right to limit congressional terms.
  To all of the voters in the States highlighted in red behind me, the 
Clinton administration and the Court said, ``Tough luck, we know 
better.''
  Our Nation's executive and judicial branches have spoken--they oppose 
term limits. The only hope left is our legislative branch--this 
Congress. And for this Congress, the only option the Court left was a 
daunting one--a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds 
ratification by Congress.

  Mr. President, amending the Constitution is never easy, and following 
the House's rejection of term limits and the Supreme Court's ruling on 
them, many are saying that the fight is over--that it may be a good 
political issue for the 1996 election, but a deadend for this Congress.
  In fact, many of them have come to me and said ``John, we appreciate 
what you've done, but we have given up on the Congress.''
  Well, let me just say something to all the advocates across the 
country whose cause is my concern. I will continue to fight--fight to 
ensure that the 228 names listed behind me, including mine, are once 
again subjected to the will of the people; fight for this idea that has 
become an ideal; and fight to ensure that this Congress will not only 
vote on term limits, but pass a resolution restoring the American 
people's right to limit congressional terms.
  Mr. President, Lincoln said, ``Let us have faith that right makes 
might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we 
understand it.'' Today, the will of the American people stands in 
direct contrast to the will of the executive and judicial branches of 
our Government. But I know that they too believe that right makes might 
and that they are depending on us to dare to do our duty.
  I know that this is an issue that makes some of my fellow Senators 
uncomfortable. One need only look at the endless delay in consideration 
of term limits to confirm this suspicion. This, however, is an issue of 
enormous importance to the American people. They will hold us 
accountable--they will remember.
  I made a promise during my campaign last year. A promise that I would 
pursue certain issues with determination and discipline. Term limits on 
Members of Congress was one of those issues. And I intend to fulfill my 
promise.
  And so today, I offer a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution. At 
issue here is whether the Senate will ``pass a constitutional amendment 
limiting congressional terms.'' And while the amendment is not binding, 
Mr. President, it will be revealing.
  For an overwhelming majority of Americans want term limits. We shall 
now see how many in the U.S. Senate share their desire.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2915.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF A 
                   CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL 
                   TERMS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the United States Senate 
     should pass, prior to the end of 1995, a constitutional 
     amendment limiting the number of terms Members of Congress 
     can serve.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2916 to Amendment No. 2915

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding consideration of 
        a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second amendment 
regarding a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2916 to amendment No. 2915.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the word ``SEC.   .'' and insert the 
     following:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF A 
                   CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL 
                   TERMS.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that the United States Senate 
     should pass, prior to the end of the First Session of the 
     104th Congress, a constitutional amendment limiting the 
     number of terms Members of Congress can serve.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you for this opportunity. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I came forward to speak on something else, 
but I am curious and interested on the term-limit issue. The question 
being proposed: Should there be term limits? There are term limits in 
this country. The term limits are 6 years for a U.S. Senator and 2 
years for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Should someone be elected to the House who becomes, from their 
experience, a slothful, indolent oaf of some sort, voters very quickly 
in 2 years in the House and 6 years in the Senate can send them into 
complete and immediate retirement.
  There are term limits. I think the question the Senator is proposing 
is what kind of term limits should exist.
  I respectfully say I do not spend a lot of time speaking about this 
subject, but the retirement of Sam Nunn in the Senate this week ought 
to remind all of us of something important once again. It is important 
to remember that you can put a half dozen new people in a basket in 
this Chamber who have been around 6 months, 9 months, 

[[Page S 15087]]
or a year--that would include myself when I came--and you would not 
have the experience Sam Nunn gained during the final 12 of his 24 years 
in the U.S. Senate in dealing with international and defense issues.
  That is a debate we will have at some later point. I think it does 
not favor this country to suggest somehow that we should have 
prohibited this country from the service given by Calhoun, Clay, 
Webster, and, yes, Goldwater and Humphrey and Dole and others. These 
are people who spent a lot of time serving the public interests, 
amassing a great deal of experience and served this country well.
  I do not spend a minute worrying or thinking about term limits. That 
is up to the American people. If they choose to change the Constitution 
to limit their choice in a different way, they have every right to do 
that, and will do that if that is their pleasure.

                          ____________________