[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15217-S15219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the substitute amendment (No. 2898) to H.R. 927, the 
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rules.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the 
Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. 
Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 59, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 489 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--36

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Exon
     Hatfield
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 
36, three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, what is the pending business now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Ashcroft amendment 
in the second degree to amendment No. 2916.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is that the Ashcroft amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the second degree.
  Mr. BUMPERS. An amendment would not be in order to that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It is in the second 
degree.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2916, As Modified

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I come to the floor to make a motion in 
regard to the second-degree amendment which I have submitted to this 
body. It is an amendment related to term limits. I believe that it is a 
substantial question and item on the agenda of the American people. All 
the polls indicate overwhelmingly that the people favor term limits. 
Forty States term limit their Governors; 20-some States have attempted 
to term limit the U.S. Congress.
  The amendment before the U.S. Senate is a simple one. It says:

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

  Members of this body have debated this issue on this occasion and on 
previous occasions. The pros and cons are well known. I do not believe 
we will settle this issue with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but I 
do believe it is possible for us to identify those of us who are for 
term limits and those of us who are against term limits.
  In order to get this vote, I have conferred with the majority leader, 
and I have modified the amendment so as to make it consistent with his 
agreement with the rest of the freshman class on the Republican side 
and others that the amendment itself should be voted on next April.
  Thus, this amendment merely says that it is the sense of the Senate 
that we should pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number of 
terms that Members of Congress can serve. I want to express my 
appreciation to the majority leader for his cooperation in this 
respect.
  Last week, he assured me that he would do his best to assist me in 
getting a vote on this matter at the earliest possible time this week, 
and here we are on the first day of our deliberations this week, and we 
will have an opportunity to vote in this respect.
  The procedure which I intend to invoke in order to have this vote is 
a motion to table the amendment. Those who vote against tabling would 
be voting in favor of term limits; those who vote in favor of tabling, 
would be voting against term limits. But this will provide an 
opportunity for us to vote on this most important issue.
  So, Mr. President, I now move to table the Ashcroft second-degree 
amendment regarding the limitation of congressional terms, and 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.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if I can take 1 minute or 2 minutes of 
leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not have any objection to the vote. I 
am going to vote against tabling the resolution. But as I indicated 
when we were 

[[Page S 15218]]
requested by nearly every group who is supporting term limits, in 
addition to the Christian Coalition, I thought nearly every Member, 
every Member of the freshman class and others, we did accommodate them 
by saying we would have the vote later. Some suggest next April, which 
would give them time to do whatever they do in that time to encourage 
more people to vote for term limits.
  So I do not have any problems with the efforts of Senator Ashcroft. I 
was prepared to bring it up 3 weeks ago, but I must say the same thing 
happened with the flag amendment. We asked about it, and then all the 
people who support the flag amendment said, ``Oh, we have to have more 
time.'' All right, we will give you more time.
  I am not certain when that amendment will be brought up, or if they 
would like to do it later this year. I am not certain we will have 
time. We had time last week and the week before. We had time for term 
limits. I assume by next April we will have some additional time. I 
cannot set an exact date. All this resolution says is that we should 
vote sometime on term limits. I do not have any problem with that. So I 
hope the amendment will not be tabled.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from the 
supporters of term limits requesting that I reschedule the term limits 
vote for next year be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Christian Coalition,

                                 Chesapeake, VA, October 13, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: The Cristian Coalition thanks you for 
     granting our request to reschedule a vote on a constitutional 
     amendment to provide for term limits until next year.
       Postponement of the vote should increase our prospects for 
     success as the Senate will not be in the midst of 
     deliberations on reconciliation and appropriations bills, and 
     1996 will be an election year.
       Thank you for your leadership and for your support for term 
     limits.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Brian Lopina,
     Director, Governmental Affairs Office.
                                                                    ____



                                     Americans Back in Charge,

                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 1995.

Term Limits Activists Applaud Senator Dole for Rescheduling Term Limits 
         Vote; Pledge To Mobilize Grassroots Support for Issue

       Washington, DC.--Term limits activists today applauded 
     Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) for agreeing to their 
     request to reschedule the Senate vote on term limits.
       ``We applaud the willingness of Sen. Dole to reschedule the 
     first ever Senate floor vote on a term limits constitutional 
     amendment,'' said Cleta Mitchell, Director/General Counsel of 
     Americans Back in Charge in Washington, D.C. ``We requested 
     that Sen. Dole reschedule the vote on term limits until next 
     year. We believe it is in the best interests of the issue to 
     be able to focus public attention on term limits for the 
     weeks leading up to the Senate vote and that is not possible 
     at this time, with the congressional focus on the budget, 
     taxes and Medicare. It would not be fair to term limits for 
     the vote to occur now and we are pleased that Sen. Dole 
     agreed to our request that floor action be rescheduled.''
       ``Term limits is an issue of fundamental importance and one 
     that the American people care about. Over 25 million votes 
     have been cast in favor of term limits in the past five years 
     in elections held in 22 states. Ultimately, the members of 
     the U.S. Senate will be called upon to make a decision as to 
     whether they intend to honor or ignore the obvious will of 
     the American people. We want to be certain that when that day 
     comes, the people have had a full and fair opportunity to 
     weigh in on the issue with their Senators, reminding the 
     Senate of the public support for term limits. We look forward 
     to working with our principal author, Sen. Thompson and the 
     other members of the Senate supporting term limits to build 
     the Senate between now and next spring when SJ Res 21 comes 
     to the Senate floor.''
       Americans Back in Charge is the first national term limits 
     organization, which grew out of the 1st in the nation 
     Colorado state term limits effort in 1989-90. Other groups 
     participating in the Term Limits Coalition include American 
     Conservative Union, Council for Citizens Against Government 
     Waste, Council for Government Reform, Seniors Coalition, and 
     the Christian Coalition.
                                                                    ____


[News Release from Fred Thompson, U.S. Senator, Tennessee, Washington, 
                           DC, Oct. 12, 1995]

         Thompson Thanks Dole for Rescheduling Term Limits Vote

       Washington, DC.--Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) today thanked 
     Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole for his willingness to 
     reschedule a Senate floor vote on Thompson's term limits 
     Constitutional amendment from this week to early next year.
       ``The Majority Leader has provided supporters of term 
     limits with an opportunity to maximize the public's 
     involvement in this critical debate,'' Thompson said, ``while 
     at the same time giving term limits backers in the Senate the 
     time to urge their colleagues in the strongest terms to 
     support the amendment. Make no mistake, it is in the best 
     interest of the term limits movement that this Senate vote 
     come next April.''
       Thompson pointed out that a vote now, in the midst of the 
     Senate debate over the budget and appropriations legislation, 
     would not receive the public or Senate attention it deserves.
       Eight other Senate freshmen joint Thompson on a letter 
     delivered to Majority Leader Dole on October 4 requesting 
     that the vote be rescheduled in April. In addition, the Term 
     Limits Coalition--which includes Americans Back in Charge, 
     American Conservative Union, Christian Coalition, Council for 
     Government Reform, Seniors Coalition, Council for Citizens 
     Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers Union--
     strongly urged in a separate letter that Dole delay the floor 
     debate and vote.
                                                                    ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1995.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: As the primary sponsors and supporters 
     of Senate Joint Resolution 21, the constitutional amendment 
     to limit congressional terms, we are joining forces to 
     request that the Senate postpone any scheduled vote on SJ Res 
     21 until April, 1996.
       We have been meeting with and discussing the upcoming term 
     limits vote in the Senate with those individuals and 
     organizations who are most dedicated to passage by Congress 
     of the term limits constitutional amendment. Those who are 
     prepared to lead the effort to round up votes for SJ Res 21 
     are in agreement that it makes little sense to bring the 
     issue to the Senate floor for a vote this fall when the 
     Senate is otherwise wholly absorbed with the crucial budget 
     issues.
       Supporters of term limits have indicated to us that the 
     crush of other legislative business pending before the Senate 
     over the next two months will make it difficult, if not 
     impossible, for term limits to receive the kind of attention 
     from the Senate and the American people that it deserves.
       We do not propose an indefinite postponement of the first 
     recorded vote on the term limits amendment. Rather, we would 
     specifically ask that the resolution be scheduled for a vote 
     in April, 1996. By making this change in the schedule, we 
     believe that it will enable the Senate leadership to work 
     with term limits supporters inside and outside the Senate to 
     achieve the maximum possible support for SJ Res 21.
       Please let us know at your earliest possible convenience 
     your response to this letter so that those of us committed to 
     term limits can have the certain knowledge of exactly how and 
     when the Senate plans to proceed in considering this vitally 
     important issue. The American people are anxious for the 
     Senate to consider term limits when we can give it our full 
     attention. We believe that April, 1996 is the appropriate 
     time for a complete and fair Senate debate on term limits. We 
     urge your favorable consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
         James M. Inhofe, Spencer Abraham, Rick Santorum, Rod 
           Grams, Jon Kyl, Fred Thompson, Bill Frist, Craig 
           Thomas, and Mike DeWine.
                                                                    ____

                                               September 29, 1995.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: The undersigned organizations have been 
     actively involved in the effort to pass the constitutional 
     amendment to limit the terms of members of Congress. We are 
     all deeply committed to term limits as a cornerstone of a 
     permanent restraint on the role of the federal government. We 
     believe that limiting the terms of members of Congress is an 
     important structural change that the American people support 
     overwhelmingly and we want to do all in our power to help 
     bring term limits to reality as part of our Constitution.
       To that end, we are aware that you have promised to bring 
     the term limits constitutional amendment to the floor of the 
     U.S. Senate for a vote in the 104th Congress and for that we 
     are grateful. We believe it is significant that this Congress 
     will allow, for the first time in America's history, a 
     recorded vote on term limits in the House and the Senate. 
     While we appreciate your commitment to bring term limits to 
     the Senate floor this fall, we are asking that you postpone 
     consideration of the term limits amendment to April of next 
     year.
       All of us are aware of the difficult and crowded 
     legislative calendar facing the United States Senate during 
     the weeks between now and the scheduled adjournment of the 
     first session of the 104th Congress. Term limits is an issue 
     that deserves a complete and open debate on the floor of the 
     United States Senate. We believe that the American people are 
     entitled to such a full and fair hearing on the issue of term 
     limits--and we believe that this fall is not a time when such 
     a debate can or will occur. Because of the budget, tax, 
     Medicare and other major fiscal issues facing the Senate, not 
     to mention the other issues remaining to be considered as 
     part of the 

[[Page S 15219]]
     House Contract with America, we do not believe that term limits will be 
     able to be given its proper consideration by the Senate if 
     the vote is held this fall. We do not think there is adequate 
     time available to the members or the citizens to focus the 
     necessary national attention on term limits if it is wedged 
     among the issues now facing Congress.
       It is further our belief that the most important 
     contribution you can make at this point in time toward 
     helping to maximize the Senate's support for term limits is 
     by granting to the supporters of term limits a specified time 
     on the Senate calendar for April, 1996 to schedule a vote on 
     term limits. If April is not acceptable, we would request 
     that you advise us now of another time certain in the spring 
     of next year when term limits will be rescheduled for a 
     Senate vote.
       We believe that this is more appropriate timing that will 
     benefit the issue of term limits and the ability of the 
     American people to focus their attention--and that of their 
     Senators--on the importance of this vote.
       We urgently request that you adopt this strategy and notify 
     us as soon as possible as to whether we can expect a Senate 
     vote in April of 1996, or exactly when such a vote would be 
     rescheduled. We look forward to the opportunity to work with 
     your leadership team to encourage passage of the 
     constitutional amendment for term limits next year.
       Thank you for your consideration.
       Organizations Supporting Term Limits: Americans Back in 
     Charge, American Conservative Union, Christian Coalition, 
     Council for Government Reform, Seniors Coalition, and Council 
     for Citizens Against Government Waste.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to table the Ashcroft amendment 
to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
  I have not yet decided how I will vote on an amendment to the 
Constitution proposing limits on the terms of office for Members of 
Congress when it comes before the Senate next year.
  The Ashcroft amendment is not a constitutional amendment. It is a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution lacking the force of law. Its language 
is totally open-ended without restrictions and standards. Therefore, 
although I may support specific constitutional amendment language when 
it is offered, I cannot support and will vote to table the Ashcroft 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on agreeing to the 
motion to table amendment No. 2916 offered by the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER (When her name was called). Present.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the 
Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Florida [Ms. 
Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 490 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter

                                NAYS--45

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Exon
     Hatfield
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Boxer
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2916) was agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be no more votes this evening.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________