[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 159 (Friday, October 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15156-S15157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S DISSATISFACTION WITH CONGRESS

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the American public's dissatisfaction 
with the Congress is again on the rise. The American public's faith in 
its elected leaders is waning, and I think there are reasons for this 
disturbing trend.
  I think it is because when the people look at Washington, DC, they 
are beginning again to see what they have seen in years past. They see 
business as usual. They see politicians putting self-interest first and 
politics first. They see politicians perhaps then moving to parochial 
interests or just the interests of a small part of the country. The 
national interest, it seems, follows somewhere after the special 
interests. But it takes a long time, as people watch this body 
deliberate, for them to see us finally get to the national interest. It 
sees a body in deliberation that finds it very difficult to confront 
the issues that the people have actually sent us here to confront.
  In short, I think the American people see an imperial Congress, a 
Congress that is perceived to be arrogant and indifferent and out of 
touch, and seen so because the agenda of the people is accorded a 
standing which is simply disproportionately low compared to the 
standing of the political interests, the special interests, the 
provincial or parochial interests.
  I think it is important that we begin again to restate and 
redemonstrate our commitment to the agenda of the American people. As 
the people grow in their dissatisfaction, they manifest their 
disapproval in a number of ways which are clear and apparent.
  Approval ratings of Congress are at an all-time low again. We have 
managed to snatch from the jaws of victory a defeat here. The American 
people were beginning to think that they could count on us for reform. 
As a matter of fact, there are a number of substantial reforms which we 
have undertaken. We have made a commitment to balance the budget in 7 
years, and that is important. And we are on track for doing it. That is 
significantly different than the President of the United States who 
said he wants to balance the budget in 10 years. But if you look 
through the smoke and mirrors of those 10 years, you find that they are 
predicated upon administration figures, and they do not have the 
integrity or validity of the Congressional Budget Office bipartisan 
figures that the Congress is using.
  It is a shame when we are making that kind of progress, when we are 
doing welfare reform that is substantial and will make a real 
difference, when we are addressing major issues, that we again are 
falling in the approval of the American people. But I think it is 
because they see some of the endemic, old-time politics as usual rising 
again to the surface. You see our two-party system being questioned and 
people talking about a third party and people discussing the potential 
of independent candidacies with an alarming frequency and with a 
tremendous--well, it is an alarming array of support. There is a new 
desire for a third party and a reincarnation again of Ross Perot.
  I think we need to demonstrate that, as American people, we are a 
different kind of Congress, that this Congress which was elected in 
1994 is a Congress where our rhetoric is matched by our resolve. It is 
a Congress where our agenda meets the agenda and the challenges of the 
American people. It is a Congress where our greatest concern is not 
losing a vote but losing the faith of the American people.
  I think in order to reacquire the confidence of the people we have to 
be willing again to tackle the toughest issues--issues like the 
balanced budget and term limits which represent fundamental systemic 
reform. We now have the opportunity to keep the faith on term limits. 
We are in the process of making good on our commitment for a balanced 
budget. But we have an opportunity to keep the faith on term limits. To 
do so will require courage--not the courage of shying away from fights 
and delaying votes, but the courage of meeting our challenges and 
keeping the faith with the American people. We came here to change 
Washington. We need to ensure that Washington does not change us.
  There are lessons to be learned, lessons about how to get things 
done, about how to be most effective, about how not to spin our wheels, 
how to take advantage of the rules so we are not dislocated in our 
efforts for achievement by those who are much more familiar with the 
process than we are.
  But there are things that we do not want to learn here in Washington. 
We do not want to learn about sacrificing our principles or setting 
aside the agenda of the American people.
  We do not want to learn how to avoid or skirt dealing with the issues 
for which we were sent here. We do not want to learn to act just for 
political expedience. Those would be substantial lessons, but they 
would be lessons which would drive us away from the American people and 
drive the wedge of insecurity and a lack of confidence between the 
people and their representatives.
  We must always be sure that we are ready to fight for principles, 
always stand up for what we know is right even if it means losing a 
vote.
  As you well know, Mr. President, I am speaking about our commitment 
to address the issue of term limits. Why are term limits important? 
Because they help restore one of the first principles of the American 
people and the American Republic, and that is representative democracy. 
Term limits help ensure that there are competitive elections. When 
incumbents are running for public office, even in years where there is 
as much revolutionary change as there was in 1994, incumbents win 91 
percent of the time. Yes, even in the revolution of 1994, incumbents 
won 91 percent of elections where they were seeking reelection.
  How? Well, they use their biggest perk. That is incumbency. If you 
look at the data about who raises the most funds and who can just 
simply blow away the competition, it is the fact that incumbents have 
the ability to amass these war chests. They obviously have the most 
easy access to the media. They speak from an official position. And 
incumbency becomes a perk which is so big that it tilts the playing 
field. It is unfair to expect that there would be a massive infusion of 
the will of the people against incumbency, at least few are asking for 
it in the election, because the incumbents are so inordinately favored 
with the tools of politics--access to the podium and the resources that 
are necessary to buy advertising.
  We need term limits to help ensure accountability. Individuals who 
know that they will be returning to their districts or to their home 
States to live under the very laws that they enact, I believe, will 
have a different kind of incentive to deal with the public interest 
rather than the special interests or rather than the provincial 
interests or rather than the political interests, to deal with the 
interests of this Nation. The national interests of America would be 
elevated if we were to embrace the concept of term limits.
  Term limits would also help to ensure the right kind of voice of the 
people in Government by making it possible for new people and new ideas 
to come here. We need to open the doors of Government to the citizens 
of this country, and I think having reasonable 

[[Page S 15157]]
term limits would make it possible not only for more people to serve 
but for groups of people that have previously been unrepresented to 
have the opportunity for running in elections where there are open 
seats. Those open seat elections are the kinds of elections that can 
provide opportunity for newcomers to the process--the minorities, the 
women who would seek to be candidates.
  Incumbency is such an advantage that that tilted playing field, added 
to the disadvantage of people who do not have a heritage of running for 
public office, makes their access to public office almost impossible. 
Term limits would help remedy that problem. We need to return to the 
concept of a citizen legislature. We need a new respect for ideas that 
come from the people, not from the power. When we allow the voice of 
the people to be heard, we will really again begin to see a restoration 
of the public confidence in American Government.
  Now, the problem of term limits and the enactment of term limits is a 
significant one, and it is compounded by the events of recent days. 
Last year, the executive branch, the Clinton administration, sent its 
lawyers from the Justice Department into court to argue in the Thornton 
case against the right of States to impose term limits on Members of 
Congress. So the executive branch has clearly stated--at least the 
Clinton administration has--that it is against the right of the people 
as expressed in 23 of the States already that tried to impose term 
limits on their States and on their State's representatives to the 
Congress. The Clinton administration has said that door is slammed 
shut. The executive branch opposes that, went to court, and argued in 
the Supreme Court against it.
  The people know that there are three branches of Government, and they 
looked to the judicial branch, they looked to the Supreme Court until 
last spring when the Supreme Court again slammed the door of self-
government in their faces, saying you do not have a right in your State 
to say how long any individual would be eligible for service in the 
U.S. Congress. It is not up to you. We know better than you here in 
Washington. We will slam that door shut.
  Having exhausted the potential of the executive branch and having 
experienced the disappointment of a ruling in the judicial branch, the 
people of America, seeking a branch of Government confident in the 
voice of the people, confident in wanting to recognize the inputs of 
people, wanting to swing wide the door of self-government rather than 
to hold it shut, the people of America are looking now to the Congress, 
the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  Earlier in the year, we scheduled that on this day and the day 
preceding--yesterday--we would devote these 2 days to a debate of term 
limits and a vote on term limits. It would be the first time in history 
that we would have done so, and we would have been able to vote on an 
amendment that passed out of the Judiciary Committee.
  That amendment was passed out not only with a majority but with a 
bipartisan majority and sent to the floor of this Senate for 
consideration, and, well, we are simply not debating that. As a 
response to our change in plans, I simply do not want us to avoid 
confronting this issue that the American people expect us to confront.
  Will we win a vote? Since the Thornton case, where the State of 
Arkansas's laws were struck down by the Supreme Court, it means that we 
will have to have 67 votes in order to win enough support for a 
constitutional amendment in this Chamber and two-thirds, of course, in 
the House of Representatives. Frankly, that is unlikely. But that does 
not mean we should not begin. And the American people deserve a vote on 
this issue because we promised them we would give them a vote on this 
issue and because they deserve a vote on this issue to identify who the 
supporters are and who the supporters are not.
  Seventy-four percent of the people of this country registered their 
approval for term limits; 23 States have actually tried to enact them 
on a State-by-State basis in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court 
has said it cannot be done, and two additional States will be voting on 
term limits in the South in the next couple weeks.
  I think it is time for us Members of the Senate to respond to our own 
commitment to have a vote on term limits, and that is why I have 
offered an amendment to this measure which is now being considered on 
our relationship to our neighbor to the south, to Cuba, and saying we 
need a sense of the Senate providing a marker for every Member of this 
body to cast a ballot either in favor of term limits or against term 
limits. I look forward to a vote on that amendment. I look forward to a 
vote on that amendment in the near future, a vote that will not be 
binding, no, because it is just a sense of the Senate--not binding, but 
it will be revealing, a vote that will finally allow the American 
people to know where Senators stand on this very important issue.
  I believe term limits provides an opportunity for us to justifiably 
regain the confidence of the American people because a vote on term 
limits is something we promised the American people. It is something we 
should deliver, not just because we promised it but because the people 
of America want it. It is a part of the agenda of the American people 
and as such it must be a part of the agenda of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this opportunity, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that further proceedings under the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________