[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 51 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3717-S3725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS
The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to take up once again the
business before the Chamber, the constitutional amendment on term
limits. This amendment would provide for a limitation of 12 years for
Members of the U.S. Senate and 12 years for the House of
Representatives. It is a constitutional amendment which will require
two-thirds vote of this body and then ratification by the States. It is
prospective in nature. That is what we are about here today.
It has been a long time coming. I believe this is the first time that
a constitutional term limits amendment has worked its way through the
committee system. I was proud to be able to sponsor the amendment
coming out of the Judiciary Committee, and now we find it finally on
the floor of the U.S. Senate for the first time in history.
I appreciate the leadership and the assistance of the majority leader
in seeing that this has come about.
There was a term limits vote in 1947, as I read my history. I think
term limits got one vote at that time. So it has been right at 50 years
now since there has been any vote at all on the issue of term limits.
[[Page S3718]]
I find that absolutely remarkable because poll after poll after poll
indicates that upward of 70 to 75 percent of the people in this country
support term limits. I cannot think of anything else that enjoys such
broad popular support that cannot even find its way on to the floor,
much less get passed, before the Congress.
In a day and time when we are all hooked up with all kinds of
electronic devices in order to monitor the pulse of the American people
almost on an hourly basis--some say too much--there is such little time
we have to reflect and deliberate, but that is what we do. At a time
when we take public opinion polls, it looks like about every couple of
hours in this country, in order to test what the people want, and at a
time when we pick up the fact that 50 to 55 percent of the people want
something in this country and we seem to jump through hoops around here
in order to get it done and be responsive to the American people, we
find that when it comes to term limits, although an overwhelming
majority of people consistently say that they want this, it takes 50
years to even get it to a vote in the U.S. Senate.
I find that somewhat remarkable. Obviously, the reason is because in
our daily lives here in regulating other people's lives and in spending
other people's moneys, when it comes to us, when it comes to maybe
short-circuiting what would otherwise be a lifetime political career,
we turn the other way and we are not quite as interested in what the
majority of the people want, or we come up with ingenious arguments why
in this particular case we must show our independence and not give the
majority of the people what they want.
We cannot say no to any kind of spending program that would balance
our budget. But in this particular instance, we need to show our
independence because what choice do we have if we accede to the wishes
of the people? We would only have an additional 12 years in the U.S.
Senate--an additional 12 years--as if this were an onerous proposition.
It is not an onerous proposition. It is not revolutionary. It is
something that was contemplated by our Founding Fathers, who knew that
from time to time circumstances would change and who provided in the
Constitution a way to address those changing circumstances.
Circumstances have indeed changed, and we will address those and why we
need this particular amendment.
Let us talk for a moment about what the effort to get the
constitutional amendment for term limits on to the floor is not all
about. It is not about simply changing new faces for old faces. It is
not about simply replacing people for the sake of replacing people. It
is not because of any vindictiveness because we are mad at Congress, as
a lot of people are, and that we want to punish somebody. It is not
about that at all.
As a matter of fact, it is about just the opposite. It is about
making Congress more credible with the American people. It is about
enhancing the stature of Congress. Syndicated columnist George Will
wrote a book a few years ago entitled ``Restoration.'' It was about
term limits and the need for term limits. He is an individual who, he
says, opposed term limits for many, many years; and for a variety of
reasons he came to believe that this was perhaps the only way that we
would be able to work our way out of our problems that we are getting
deeper and deeper into in this country.
But why would he call his book on term limits ``Restoration''? It is
because he believes that term limits would be something that would
restore and enhance the credibility and the stature of the U.S.
Congress. Indeed, how could it get much lower? Poll after poll after
poll, again, indicates that after a brief blip after this last
election, we are back down there in the view of public opinion, the
American people, where we have been for so long that is abysmally low.
People have less and less confidence in their Government, have less
and less confidence in their Congress. It is Mr. Will's view, and it is
my view, that if we had more of a system that was contemplated by our
Founding Fathers who could not have dreamed of a professional
legislature at that time, that if we went back more to a citizen
legislature type approach, that people would feel closer to their
Government and have more respect for it.
I mention our Founding Fathers. I was reading recently, again, after
George Washington served two terms, they beseeched him to stay on.
``How can we lose the services of the father of our country? Surely the
republic will fall if George Washington does not stay on past his two
terms.'' George Washington knew better. That is why he goes down into
the history books in the manner that he has and is viewed in the manner
that he is viewed. He knew better. He got on his horse, road out of
town, and history records that he never even set foot back in
Washington, DC.
The same thing with Thomas Jefferson after serving two terms.
Surely--surely--we need Jefferson to run again because we know what
kind of respect and admiration we have for him, and back then also. He
took his slings and arrows by his opponents and the press at the time,
but he was greatly admired and respected. He, too, knew it would be a
bad precedent.
We are talking about the Presidency in those cases, but it was before
term limits, which, of course, we have on the Presidency. People who
fight most vigorously against term limits for Members of Congress, who
are usually Members of Congress, seem to be quite content to keep the
term limits on the Presidency, which we have. But at a time before we
had the term limits on the Presidency, those two great men saw the
wisdom of serving a couple of terms and then moving on. History will
reflect that we have had some pretty good ones to follow them, also,
who would not have been serving at the time that they served had the
others chosen to stay.
So that is what it is not about. It is not about change for change's
sake. There is nothing that inherently goes wrong with an individual
when he reaches a certain age or you have served in Congress for a
certain period of time. There is no biological changes that necessarily
take place. He does not become evil because of that service.
We are talking about doing something that will enhance the stature
and effectiveness of the Congress. What it is about is more than the
individual Members who serve in this body or who have ever served in
this body. It is no reflection on them. It is about us as an
institution, and it is about us as a nation and about our future and
about equipping ourselves in a way that will more effectively allow us
to deal with what some believe to be insurmountable problems that we
already have, fundamental problems that we really show no indication
that we are capable of solving.
Mr. President, it is no less true that we are bankrupting this Nation
simply because it is heard so often. But it has happened. We know it is
happening. We know that the demographics are catching up with us. We
know that when the baby boomers start retiring, it is going to wreak
havoc on many of our social programs. We know that Social Security is
in dire jeopardy. We know that Medicare is in dire jeopardy. Yet we
cannot get to first base in doing anything about it.
We continue, after this so-called congressional revolution when my
party was rewarded at the polls and we were all brought in, even after
all of that, we have found that as an institution--I will even include
the Presidency in that certainly--as a working government we cannot get
to first base in solving the most dire fiscal problem that this country
has ever faced.
We probably cannot do enough wrong to mess things up in the next few
years. We will be OK. Most of us will be out of office and drawing our
pensions, and we will once again have handed the problem over to the
next generation. But down the road, as surely as I am standing here, we
know the demographers tell us that we cannot continue down the road
that we are on. It is just that simple. Everybody in Washington, DC,
behind closed doors will acknowledge that.
Doing something about it, of course, is the hard part. We have not
shown any indication that we can really do anything about it. We are
talking about a 7-year balanced budget plan. The Republicans have tried
mightily to get that done. We passed in the Senate for the first time
in decades a balanced budget. The President vetoed it.
But even if we had that plan according to what we wanted, at the end
of
[[Page S3719]]
the 7 years, our country would still be looking at a $6 trillion debt,
a $6 trillion debt. We talk about addressing this problem to the extent
that we claim to be addressing it with the assumption there are not
going to be any recessions and not going to be any international
conflicts and not going to be all the things that always happen--that
always happen.
What are we doing to try to get to the first step? We are arguing
over the division between entitlement spending and discretionary
spending. Nobody really wants to do anything about entitlement spending
because where the problem is is also where the votes are. It is tough
to tell people we cannot continue to do things the same old way and we
cannot continue to increase every year at the rate of 10 percent.
Everybody knows it. We do not have the ability to tell that to
anybody, because we are afraid to, because we want to get reelected,
and we want the campaign contributions that come from it.
The plans that have been laid on the table, and I will be as
bipartisan as I can about this, all the plans that have been laid on
the table back end load the problem. The President's plan does it more
than any of the rest of them, but all of them back end load the
problem. So when we come up with a so-called balanced budget, all we
are doing is putting numbers down on a piece of paper, hoping that
years later some future Congress will have the guts to do what we do
not have the guts to do, and we claim we will slash discretionary
spending in the outyears, after we are out of office.
That is what will happen. That is the way we balance the budget. That
is hogwash. It will not happen and everybody knows it is not going to
happen. That is the best-case scenario. That is the best-case scenario.
If we made that initial downpayment, that is what we would be doing.
It is not really a downpayment. If it really were a downpayment, we
would still be looking at very bleak fiscal circumstances on down the
road. That is not even to address the need that we have in so many
other areas.
We talk about--we who call ourselves conservatives--talk about the
need to reduce the rate of growth of some of these spending programs
which has surely got to be done--and will be done, also, one way or
another or we will monetize the debt and inflate our way out of it and
become a second-rate country.
What we do not talk about sometimes is the fact that we need to spend
more in certain areas in terms of our infrastructure, in terms of
research and development, things of that nature. What do those things
have in common that the things I have been talking about do not? It has
to do with the future. There is no immediate payoff for infrastructure
and research and development and things that will make our industry
stronger, policies that will make our industry stronger down the road.
There is no immediate political payoff for that. It is difficult to
explain that to people.
What is not difficult to explain is a check in the mail 10 percent
more than the check you got in the mail last year. That is what is
driving the process. That is why we are in the position we are in.
So not only are the demographics going to catch up with us as far as
our spending problems are concerned, we are going--without taking care
of some basic fundamental needs that any strong nation has, because all
this money is being eaten up with regard to a handful of programs
which, with the increased interest on the national debt, is facing us
with catastrophic circumstances.
You will hear the debate now that the deficit has gone down a little
bit. Well, it does not make any difference if you look down the road
just a little, if we look past our nose--and that is about as long
range as we look or plan anymore in this country. When our competitors
think in terms of decades, we think in terms of the next election and
next quarterly statement if we are a corporation. If we look past our
nose, the temporary ups and downs, the demographics and what is built
into the system is simply going to kill us. It cannot be sustained.
That is what term limits is about. You wonder maybe where this comes
in, that and what term limits is all about. It is not about kicking a
bunch of people out. It is a system, a system. What kind of a system is
it that produced what I just described? What kind of a system is it
that we have that has produced those circumstances?
In the first place, it is not a system that we have had since the
history of the country. I mentioned changed circumstances and our
constitutional framework being such and our Founding Fathers being wise
enough to see that there would be times and circumstances when we would
have to adjust our underlying document to meet those changing
circumstances. You look back in the days of the Founding Fathers and
look at the challenges that they faced, it seems to me like, in many
cases, or in most cases, it was more of an intellectual challenge. You
needed people who understood history. You needed people who knew about
other governments. You needed people who understood human nature. You
needed some philosophers. Yes, you even needed some lawyers and people
who understood Constitutions and how laws were written. But you needed
those intellectual traits that really laid down the most noble document
in the history of the world as far as what secular man has produced. We
got it.
Then it seems to me that as time came along in the 1930's and the
1940's, new challenges were presented. We had the Great Depression,
which my mother tells me about. We had a major war, a world war. At
that time we needed inspiration. We needed programs. We need the
Government to do the things that the Government maybe had not done
before. We needed unifying actions. That was the era in the beginning
of what some referred to as the ``rhetorical Presidency,'' when FDR--
and Woodrow Wilson was a great advocate of this--we needed somebody who
could rally the people and get them together to a concentrated course
of action. That was needed during those times.
Those circumstances have changed now. We do not need what we needed
before because we are not faced with what we were faced with before. In
many cases, we have to go back and revisit what we have already done,
because since those times the very nature of our Government and society
has changed. We, as an institution, are less well equipped to deal with
the problems than we have ever been before. Our basic problem now is
not one of intellectual leadership. It is not one of rhetorical
leadership. Our problem now is the lack of will, the lack of will to do
what we know that somebody, either us or our successors, have to do. We
do not have the lack of will.
Why is it we are in such a system now? I think it is because of many
reasons. Look at what has happened since then--the growth of
Government. Government has grown mightily since then. That means
spending, the cult of spending, the political reward you get from
bribing taxpayers with their own money. It sounds pretty harsh, but
that is essentially what it amounts to. No politician was ever turned
out of office simply because he said yes to somebody, that, yes, they
could have whatever they wanted. That is kind of what we feel like we
are there to do, is to listen to people who want money, want programs,
want increases and want more and respond to that. It is the cult of
spending.
Because of our desire not to ever want to say no to anybody, because
that could endanger our career, we more likely than thought, ``Go along
with it.'' That is a shorthand for the basic problem we have. There are
other factors--the overall philosophy that you need somebody in the
Senate, for example, who has been around for a long time. The idea is
you come up here and you stay as long as you can and then at the end of
the day you are in a position to get more pork for your State than
anybody else.
That is the philosophy that still holds over to this day. You do not
worry about the Nation necessarily; it will take care of itself. For a
long time, the Nation did take care of itself. It was like one old
Texan said one time, ``I have watched those folks from up North talk
about this. They do not do it better than we do, and every time they
get a ham, I'm going to get a hog.'' That is the way he worked his
career, and he got a lot of hogs.
That might have been all right for a while. But now, what is good for
the Nation is good for the State; what is
[[Page S3720]]
bad for the Nation is bad for the State. Nothing is going to be good
for any particular State if it is bad for the Nation. We all live in
the same world. We are bringing kids up in the same world. They are all
going to be suffering from the consequences of what we are doing right
now. But usually, again, getting back to spending, they are the ones
that are going to be paying 80 percent tax rates and paying
astronomical interest rates when they go to buy their first home or
automobile. They are the ones who are going to suffer the consequences.
It is not going to make any difference to them whether or not we got an
extra road built somewhere.
The interest groups have proliferated every year, and more and more
come to town. People have a right to come and petition their
Government. I have never been one of those who criticize people who
come in and petition their Government, whether they do it personally or
through a hired lobbyist. If we are going to pass laws that affect
people's lives, we have to expect people to come in and tell us what
effect that is going to have. But we have passed so many laws,
regulating so many aspects of life in America and business in America,
and everybody now has a stake up here, and they interpret that stake in
terms of how much more can they get from up here. It is not a matter of
concentrating on making the pie bigger anymore, it is a matter of
making sure you get a bigger share of the pie, which means taking it
away from somebody else. That is the fight up here.
As the interest groups grow and become more powerful, they have a
carrot and a stick for every Member of Congress. The carrot is
financing them. The stick is working against them for their reelection.
Those are powerful motivations, all under pressure and going toward the
ultimate result of more and more spending--more and more spending.
Someone said one time that the ultimate test of a democracy was
whether or not, once the people learn they can pay themselves out of
their own treasury, they will never have interest rates. That is the
question we are going to have to answer in this debate. I am not sure
that the answer is looking all that good.
So what will term limits do? It is no panacea, we know that. There is
no short-term solution. This constitutional amendment process in and of
itself certainly is not a short-term process. But what I think it will
do is better give us a chance to deal with these problems, to
ameliorate the influence of the cult of spending that we have all
fallen into in this town. In the first place, it will open up the
process. People will know that certain positions will be open from time
to time, and if they ever want to serve their country a little bit and
come up here and look after the interests of their children and do the
right thing, they do not have to go up against some well-entrenched
incumbent who has all the money he can possibly use because that is
where the money flows, but it is going to be open. They say, yes, I
have done something with my life already. I have a career, I am a small
business woman, or I am a farmer, or I am a professional person. But I
can give a few years, knowing that I will be coming back home before
too long. I can give a few years of service. What is the motivation?
What is going to be the motivation of that person to go build a
political career and be timid and say, yes, and spend and spend? No, he
cannot, because after a certain number of years, under this
constitutional amendment, he is out. Two terms in the Senate.
I ask my colleagues, most of whom are going to oppose me on this
amendment, I regret to say, what it would be like to run or serve 6
years in the U.S. Senate, knowing you are not going to have to raise
any more money, and knowing that you are not going to have to worry
about being turned out of office. Some people do that anyway--under
self-imposed circumstances. I have committed to do that. I do not say
that that is the only way to go. It is not the only way to go. I admire
my colleagues who say let us change the system, including me, but until
then I am not going to do it myself. I do not personally have any
desire to stay past that allotted amount of time. That is my own
personal decision. I am looking forward to the time when I can spend
all of my time doing what the people sent me up here to do. That is the
kind of system that we would have under term limits.
A third of the people, at all times, in this body would be under
those circumstances. Would that not be more likely to produce people
who would be willing to take some risks in leveling with the American
people, and saying we cannot consume any more right now because we are
taking it from the unborn, we are taking it from your daughter's unborn
child, because they will be the ones that have to pay the consequences.
So we cannot have that right now. How many times have you heard anybody
say that recently? I think if we had a different kind of system, we
would be more likely to see that on a consistent basis. I think we
would be more likely to do something about the cynicism that we have
seen, which has been too prevalent for too many years.
I see other colleagues on the floor, Mr. President. So at this time,
I will relinquish the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. President, under what order
are we? Is the Senator yielding and controlling the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order with respect to that.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the efforts of the
Senator from Tennessee, and the Senator from Missouri, in support of
the amendment to the Constitution to limit terms.
Mr. President, wherever I travel in my State, the citizens of my
State are vastly in support of term limits. The Senator from Tennessee
said it is not a panacea, and that is right. But I do believe that the
reason the American people are so supportive of term limits is because
they have come to view the Nation's Capital as a bastion, a fortress, a
place where their accessibility is difficult to accomplish. I think
they have come to believe that the responsive nature of our Capital
City is lacking. And they are seeking to support every tool, every form
of discipline, which they envision might contribute to opening it up--
like opening windows to air things out in the springtime. They are
looking for tools that they believe will help break through this
fortress, that will help bring change to the way things are managed in
our Capital City, and that will make the Government, their elected
officials, more responsive.
There can be no doubt but that over the last half century Washington
has become a professionalized institution. The politician of today does
not remotely resemble what our forefathers had envisioned. They
envisioned legislators for an interim period. They envisioned
legislators who dedicated a certain portion of their lives of each year
to legislating, but were still connected in the workplace at home. They
were still farmers, they were still merchants, they were still engaged
in the life-making activities. They were not separated from the trials
of their own fellow citizens. But today, as we have changed, and
Senators talked about change, it is an entirely different process.
If you go over here to the Russell Building, which is where my office
is, named after one of the most distinguished Members of this body,
Richard B. Russell, of Georgia, and if you look up at the top of the
doors, they were all numbered differently. The reason is that each one
of those cubicles was the entire office of a U.S. Senator. Of course,
it is half the floor now. That Senator had a personal secretary and
maybe one other assistant. They got on a train, or they traveled by car
in that day. They came to Washington, and they were here for a period
of time entirely and then they went back. That Senator and that one
employee were enough to respond to all the inquiries.
Today those are vastly enlarged offices. I do not know about the
Presiding Officer's office. But we receive 1,000 to 2,000 inquiries a
day--a day. It vastly changed the manner in which we function, and it
tends to separate us.
Term limits will cause an opening up of the process. It will free and
make more independent the voting of the membership. Perhaps, Mr.
President, the single most important thing that
[[Page S3721]]
term limits will do is to bring to Washington contemporary thought
about the day and about the time.
Mr. President, in another life I had an opportunity to be director of
the U.S. Peace Corps. In that role, I probably met more of our
ambassadors than any other individual in the Government, with perhaps
the exception of the President, and I might have met more of them.
There has always been an argument that they should be professional and
not political appointees, and there is always a pressure that there be
fewer and fewer political appointees. I always argued against it. I
thought the majority should be Foreign Service in training. But I
thought both the Foreign Service and the world were well served by
mixing with these professionals contemporary thought, people who came
from the workplace and who recently came from the workplace so that the
Foreign Service in the countries around the world could get a feel for
what was being thought in the country at that very time.
It is very easy to get disconnected in the Foreign Service, and it is
very easy to get disconnected in this service because you are removed.
It is not an intentional effort, but you are removed from day-to-day
affairs, so contemporary thought is left behind. I think term limits
addresses that issue, just as I believe that there is a purpose and use
for involving in the Foreign Service's political appointments people
who come from the workplace, who come into that apparatus and who have
been dealing with the trials of the day because they are a better
reflection and mirror of who we are as we send these people abroad.
They can talk in very contemporary terms about what is happening on the
streets, so to speak. I think that turnover, or that bringing to the
Capital City the most contemporary thought, is useful.
Both the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Tennessee are
contemporarily elected, and I think both agree with me that our
attitudes are quite different than some of the colleagues who have been
here for an extended period of time--not necessarily better, but
certainly different because we have been on the hustings. We have been
in our cities and towns. We brought the newest thoughts, one of which
is term limits, to the Capital City. We were running for change, and I
think term limits would be a perpetual agent of change.
Mr. President, I will make a couple more comments and then yield.
For the life of me, I do not understand why we have term limits for
mayors, for Governors, for Presidents, for State legislators, but that
for some reason it would have a dilatory effect on the U.S. Senate.
Somehow my State has survived rather adequately with stringent term
limits. At one time you could only serve as Governor for one term. At
one time the terms were only 2 years. Yet, the State prospered and grew
and became better. I cannot find any empirical evidence where term
limits have diminished the expertise, or talent, or ability of
Government. In fact, I think it has had the capacity of energizing it
because there was always a new personality coming into the picture, a
new emphasis. I think it has stimulated citizen thought because we are
seeing an array of different personalities and ideas that are being
brought into the system. I think again that is what term limits will
ultimately produce.
I do not believe it will diminish this institution. I think it will
help the institution as it has in our States as Governors and in our
cities as mayors. This device has been a useful tool to bring
contemporary thought to invigorate the debate of ideas to our
institutions.
I commend the Senator from Tennessee, I commend the Senator from
Missouri, and others who have joined in this historic effort to bring
this institutional change.
The Senator was talking about the vast difference in our times. It
was de Tocqueville who warned us of the one frailty he saw in our new
democracy which was that as time went on, would it be able to have the
will to discipline itself from the pressures of elections, the pressure
to stay elected mounting a burden on that constantly seeking of
elections? I think it is right to raise that issue because it is
clearly an issue of independence and intimidation that has produced a
financial dilemma for our country that could bring about the fact that
we are sitting here today in the U.S. Senate faced with, in the decade,
five different programs consuming 100 percent of the U.S. Treasury. It
is clearly a result of a citizenry that is not functioning the way our
forefathers intended it to function.
So I commend you and the others, and I am pleased to have had an
opportunity to come to the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. He
has been a leader in this effort for some time and a leader before I
got here. I would like to refer again to the thought that he expressed,
that term limits would not diminish this institution; it would enhance
the institution, going back to the proposition of restoration, and
restoring it.
Mr. Will pointed out in his book that back when the country was
founded, people would line the streets and say, ``Long live Congress,
long live Congress.'' Can you imagine someone--anyone--much less lining
the streets, today saying ``Long live Congress''?
I think this would do more to enhance the U.S. Congress in the eyes
of the American people, make it a part of them, and open it up for
them. It would give the 250 million people in this country--we have 250
million. They say, ``My goodness, if we had term limits, we would not
have had Senator Jones here for all of these years. We all acknowledge
that our Republic would surely have fallen if we had not had Senator
Jones.'' But we have 250 million people. How many potentially wonderful
contributors to our society are there out there, if we open up that
system for them and let them compete in the political marketplace
without having to overcome the insurmountable odds and money that our
system has thrown in their way?
I see my colleague from Missouri, whom I am proud to say I have
walked shoulder to shoulder with through this process. He and I have
been here. No one has worked harder in this area. I see he is present.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I want to thank the
Senator from Tennessee for his leadership and commitment on this issue.
Term limits, at its core, is about fundamental American values. More
than anything else, a free society respects the will of the people. It
is understood that from time to time the passion of the people will
move wildly in one direction or other. But when we are talking about
term limits, we are not talking about some passionate wave of support
for a novel concept.
Term limits is a considered understanding of a reform which is
working. It is a limitation on service that has been operative for the
duration of our democracy in terms of the executive branch, with the
exception of President Roosevelt. It is in place in States all across
America. So it is indeed consistent with one of the basic values upon
which this Nation was founded--a respect for the will of the people.
Our ability to receive communication from the people and to respond
constructively is one of the reasons that I have sponsored and opened
the first electronic on-line petition to the Congress of the United
States, from the people of the United States, so that groups and
individuals can show their support for congressional term limits.
I think it is important that we provide this opportunity for the
people of America to indicate their support and demonstrate their
interest in this issue. And for groups, interest groups and citizens,
that have worked together on other projects, they can knock on the door
of the U.S. Congress through the Internet and alert us. We have had
more than 40,000 people visit the term limits petition page.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I was wondering if I could ask the Senator
from Missouri a question regarding just what he has said about this
petition bill which the groups are trying to help with on the World
Wide Web and Internet. Where do you find the most of the support coming
from? Who has been out there knocking on the door offering their
support, and, maybe more importantly, who has not been
[[Page S3722]]
there when we have needed this type of help and support?
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. We have gotten lots
of support from groups, of course, who are focused on term limits--
United States Term Limits, Americans Back In Charge, the American
Legion, the American Conservative Union, the Christian Coalition--
politically focused groups that understand the need for the revolution,
which the American people have asked for, and a change in the way
Washington does business.
Individuals all across this great land have flooded our term limits
home page. It has been especially interesting to see what has happened
on the Internet because it allows people who might not have the
capacity to come to Washington the chance to communicate. I have had
blind people use the Internet. I have also had paraplegics write
thanking us for opening this link of communication.
Interestingly enough, I am pleased to say to the Senator from
Minnesota, the community at large has been willing and eager to help us
open this link of communication. C-SPAN linked our term limits home
page to their home page. USA Today, the newspaper, linked our term
limits home page and our petition to their home page. CNN, the Cable
News Network, provided a link. Politics USA, which is on the net,
provided the services of CompuServe and America Online. We have had a
tremendous outpouring of assistance and support. It has been very
interesting to see the surge of interest and support that individuals
have rendered which have made it possible for Americans to express
themselves.
(Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator asked who has not been here. We have had
people from virtually every walk of life, but there have been a few
notable absences, and that has caused substantial disappointment. For
instance, United We Stand, Ross Perot's organization, has always
advocated term limits, but I have not heard a thing from Ross Perot
about this. That is a disappointment. I certainly hope that his
commitment to term limits is not just lip service. People want
commitment to revolution--change or reformation--to be substantial, and
I believe that Americans want a real commitment to this kind of
revolution.
An important aspect of this debate is the fact that Senator Dole
first scheduled it last fall, and it was clearly sent as a signal. With
such advanced notice, we had the ability to set up the home page for
term limits. Not every issue comes to the Senate with this much
advanced publicity. With that kind of open communication, people who
really care about term limits have had the opportunity to get involved.
That is why I thank Americans Back in Charge, US Term Limits, the
American Legion, the Christian Coalition, the American Conservative
Union, and numerous other groups. And I thank groups like USA Today and
CNN who allowed us to have a link from our home page to theirs. It is
disappointing that those I expected to be there, who have given lots of
voice to a commitment to term limits, have not shown up. However, I
believe we have very broad-based support. Yes, there are a few
disappointments, such as Ross Perot, but that does not mean they do not
favor term limits.
Speaking of those who favor term limits and what we have done with it
nationally, let me go to a chart which illustrates some important
points.
About 7 or 8 out of 10 people, according to all the polls, favor term
limits. These States have sought to enact term limits for the U.S.
Congress, saying that people who represent their State should be
limited in the number of terms they can serve.
It is interesting to know that these are the States, by and large,
that have the initiative process for enacting legislation, meaning that
if you are in one of these States and you do not like what your
legislature is doing, you can start a petition drive. You can actually
initiate a move to enact, to enshrine in the law, a concept that the
people want regardless of what the legislature wants.
The fact is, you would find that there are 23 States that, on their
own motion, simply took the matter into their own hands. They said,
``We want term limits. We are probably not going to get it from the
professional politicians, but we will do it by signing petitions; we
will take to the streets; we will provide the impetus for this
revolution.''
Arkansas is a good example of a State which took such initiative.
Arkansas was one of the more recent States to attempt to limit the
number of terms the individuals from their State could spend here in
Washington, DC representing them. And out of that enactment came a
famous case which was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year
saying the States cannot do this. The States cannot individually decide
on their own that they will limit the terms of the individuals they
send to Congress. So, it is 23/50 of the States generally. It is almost
100 percent of the States with initiatives by the people.
The Arkansas case, which was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, said
that the States cannot limit the period in which their own
representatives serve. In effect you have the U.S. Supreme court saying
that States do not have the authority. You have the courts, public
servants who upon appointment are there for life, against term limits.
One of the reasons we had the judiciary against term limits is that
the administration, the executive branch, argued before the court in
opposition to term limits. With both the executive branch and the
judicial branch standing before the will of the American people their
only hope is for the United States Congress to be for term limits.
I suppose it is true that the Congress is for term limits--term
limits for everybody but the Congress. It reminds me of that old saying
in my legislature back in Missouri. They would say, ``I will not tax
you and I will not tax me, we will tax the fellow behind the tree.'' We
are willing to have discipline for everybody but ourselves.
The whole idea of term limits is not novel. Senator Thompson, from
Tennessee, has done a masterful job of talking about this concept. It
is not novel. George Washington set the standard for term limits in
this country when he said we should distinguish America from the
monarchs of Europe, that we needed to have that renewing flow of
creative energy from the citizenry of the country regularly. And he
walked away because he understood the value of new life, of new input,
of the new energy that comes from new people coming forth from the
American citizenry.
Term limits reflects George Washington's view of the depth of the
talent pool of a free society. He may have looked to some casual
observers like the only person with the integrity and capacity in
America who could have led the country. There have been times, I
suppose, when it may have appeared that there was only one. But I
happen to have a view of the talent pool of America that is similar to
that of George Washington, and that is that we have enough talent that
we do not have to lock a few people into office, thinking they are the
only ones who can do the job.
I do not think there is any concept that is more ridiculous--and it
is almost amusing except it is tragic--than the thought by some Members
of this body that we are the only 100 people who could make good
decisions in the U.S. Senate. As a matter of fact, we may not be
capable of the good decisions, and I think the marketplace of public
opinion will determine that. But this country is rich in terms
of individuals with the capacity to make good judgments. We need not
fear that we do not have enough talent to change public officials once
in a while.
We have established a history of term limits in this country. In the
early 1950's, we checked term limits for the President of the United
States. We had a President in the mid-1930's and 1940's who ran four
times and, with the tilted field of incumbency, snowballed himself into
office four times. The American people understood that the value of
incumbency is the No. 1 perk of public office. You can talk about
election reform. There is no election reform more important than the
election reform of term limits. The American people understood that the
tilted field that came from long-term exploitation of incumbency simply
had to be leveled, and they leveled the field for President back in the
early 1950's, with the 22d amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
President became a term-limited office.
[[Page S3723]]
To hear some of the academics talk about term limits, you would think
that would have been the ruination of America. Not so. Not so at all.
As a matter of fact, there are a number of States that have long
embraced the concept of term limits for Governor. As my friend from
Georgia, Senator Coverdell, indicated, some of those term limits were
very short. But the States prospered, finding that the talent pool
available in their jurisdictions was always adequate to supply the need
for good public officials. There are 41 States that have sought to
limit their terms.
Mr. President, 23 States tried to limit the terms of Members of
Congress, and most of those came as a result of the will of the people
specifically, and there are about 20 States where the State
legislatures themselves have limited themselves in their terms, because
they have understood the value of term limits.
I say this to make a point that I hope can be made fundamentally
clear. Term limits is not an experimental, novel theory. We have only
had one time when we did not have a limit of two terms on President of
the United States by virtue of the respect for the term-limits policy
of George Washington, and now we have it by virtue of the 22d amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
We have 41 Governors who are term limited. We have 20 State
legislatures that work under term limits. We have a Congress of the
United States which should have been term limited, I suppose, in 23
States, were the courts to allow the will of the people to prevail. But
the courts said that had to be set aside. So that the American people
have a vast experience with term limits.
Not only do we have term limits at the State level but at the
municipal level as well. Cities have term limits, notably the largest
city in America, Los Angeles, and the second largest city in America,
New York City.
The President of the United States works under term limits. The
Governors of the States are term limited. You have the State
legislatures that are term limited. And you have the individuals who
work in the cities that are term limited. You say, ``Wait a second, who
is out of step here? Members of Congress or the American people?''
You also have the academics and those from the think tanks who say
that term limits simply cannot be respected and that they cannot be
expected to operate. It is a terrible concept. It will destroy
Government. I say to those guys in the think tanks, ``You may not be
able to work this out in theory, but the American people have worked it
out in practice.'' It may not work inside the ivy-covered tower of
academia, but it has for centuries, and in hundreds and hundreds of
circumstances. And what is more impressive to me than that is, where
are the people rising up to set term limits aside?
You have this incredible array of term-limit operations all across
America, and the people operate in the context of term limits, where it
is there, and they like it. They do not overthrow it. They do not have
petitions to get rid of it. They do not have demonstrations against it.
As a matter of fact, when the people see it operate in all these
segments and the big zero here around the Congress of the United
States, what do the people want to do? Does their aspiration reflect
their displeasure with term limits as a concept or their endorsement of
term limits as a concept? I submit it takes no rocket scientist to
figure this one out. Mr. President, 70 to 80 percent of the American
people endorse the concept of term limits for the U.S. Congress.
I just want to point out they do not endorse the concept out of
ignorance. They do not endorse the concept out of a lack of
familiarity. They do not endorse the concept because they do not know
what they are talking about. They endorse the concept on a basis, a
very substantial basis, of watching, observing and living with the
observable impacts of the concept as it is related to the President of
the United States, as it is related to the Governors of their States,
as it is related to legislatures in their States, as it is related to
city, county, and local officials in their States. And, all of a
sudden, we come to the judgment: Wait a second, maybe--maybe--the
people could be right about this. Of course, it is part of the
definition of democracy that we value the input of the people,
especially when the people are not responding to some cataclysm, but
they are reflecting their considered judgment after a rich heritage of
experience.
It reflects their confidence that America is not a shallow pool
containing scarcely 100 people who could serve in the Senate. No, it
reflects their understanding that with individuals who can use the perk
of incumbency to vote themselves back into office by dealing out the
resources of the next generation, they look at that and say, ``There's
a difference between what we do at the State and local level and what
the Congress does.''
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Certainly.
Mr. LEAHY. I do not know if the Senator was aware that in the
Judiciary Committee I had offered an amendment and included in the
Committee report that I intended to offer an amendment during this
debate which would basically make term limits effective immediately.
Obviously, you could finish the term that you are in; the Constitution
would require that. But if, at the end of that term, you fit the
number, whether it is two in the Senate and whatever it might be in the
House, you would have to leave. That would be true term limits.
I say this because I have heard a number of Members of the House who
have been here for 20 years who say they are for term limits, and we
have at least one senior Member of this body who has been for term
limits literally before I was born but is still here.
Would the Senator from Missouri support my amendment to make term
limits effective immediately, that is, at the end of whatever term you
are in? If you fit the bill you are out?
Mr. ASHCROFT. First, I was aware of the Judiciary Committee's
deliberations on this. Second, I am aware of your position. Now, let me
tell you what I support.
I support a measure which would limit the terms of Members of the
House of Representatives to three terms and Members of the Senate to
two. It would be no problem for me to limit my own terms, particularly
since I am new to this Chamber. Indeed, I came here intending to limit
my own terms to two.
Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Amendment No. 3699, As Modified
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I modify amendment No. 3699 with the
text I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his
amendment, and the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
``instructions to report the resolution back to the Senate
forthwith with an amendment as follows:
``(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the
following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States:
``Article --
``Section 1. Each State or the people thereof may prescribe
the maximum number of terms to which a person may be elected
or appointed to the Senate of the United States.
``Section 2. Each State or the people thereof may prescribe
the maximum number of terms to which a person may be elected
to the House of Representatives of the United States.
``Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it
shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution
by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
within seven years from the date of its submission to the
States by the Congress.''.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if I may reclaim my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator will be pleased to yield at the conclusion
of his remarks. I would add that I happen to be one of the few people
in this body who has been term limited. I think it was a good thing.
I have observed the operation of term limits at the State level and,
believe me, it is appropriate. I think it is important that the Senator
understand
[[Page S3724]]
what differences there might be if we were to have term limits.
Term limits change the way decisions are made. It is of interest to
me that Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute conducted a study to
determine what life under term limits might be like. What he found is
we would have passed the balanced budget amendment three times.
Concurrently, we could have equipped the President with the line-item
veto as long ago as 1985. Can you imagine? Life under term limits would
be different alright.
It is my belief that the people of this great land have said, ``We
are tired of displacing the costs of our own consumption to generations
yet to come. We are tired of the fact that every new child has a debt
at birth of $18,000.'' And yet, commonsense reforms like these continue
to fall short of the support needed for passage.
Mr. President, those are the things that did not pass. The study went
on to note things that did. It is interesting. I see my friend, the
Senator from Tennessee, is nodding his head because he knows what the
issues are. Neither of the last two tax increases would have passed,
and the last two pay increases would have failed as well.
I do not think that we should have term limits in order to get
specific legislation. I think we ought to have term limits because it
reflects well on the fundamental values of America. We should give the
people what they ask for, what they know they want. We should at least
give them the opportunity to vote on it. What stuns me is that Members
of this body do not even want to let the States have a chance to
consider it. That is a rather troublesome thing.
There are a wide variety of arguments that people bring up against
term limits. It is said, ``Well, won't term limits increase the power
of nonelected bureaucrats and staffers?'' I think in theory you might
think the staffers will know everything. That has not been the way
things have happened, however. It was not too long ago that Phil Gramm
came to the Senate and tried to upset the apple cart of spending in his
very first term. I think the 1994 newcomers have brought new ideas and
energy as well.
Somebody said, ``Well, it will increase the influence of lobbyists.''
I think the basis of lobbyist relationships is long-term. As a matter
of fact, most of the lobbyists I have talked to are opposed to term
limits. They make big investments. They want those relationships to be
as cozy as possible. I do not think we ought to have individuals in the
Congress looking forward to long careers in Washington, DC. I think we
need people looking forward to service in their district or State.
I believe the people of America have a strong understanding of term
limits. The people have enacted term limits for 41 State Governors. In
every State where they have had the initiative process, they have added
Congress to the mix.
The beltway around Washington is the barrier to reform. Roughly 74
percent of the people want term limits. We have the opportunity to give
it to them. And we have resisted. It is our fundamental duty to reflect
the will of the people, to offer them the opportunity to embrace term
limits for the Constitution of the United States.
The Senator from Vermont inquired earlier about retroactive term
limits. What is interesting to me is that, to my knowledge, everywhere
the people have had an opportunity to enact term limits on their own,
they have made the limits prospective. I believe that is why we should
have the kind of bill which has been proposed. It is not that you could
not have another kind of concept. Instead, it is because this is what
the American people prefer.
So I think the will of the people themselves is instructive. There
may, of course, be a theoretical reasons why people would want a
different approach. I do not know what that might be. But given the
experience that the American people have had, and the durability of
their understanding, I think it would behoove us to make our approach
consistent with what they have requested in the past and with what they
have specifically asked for themselves. That is consistent with the
fundamental value of democracy for which this country stands.
Ultimately, term limits and our ability to offer it to America for
inclusion into the Constitution at the adoption of the States is
something that should foster, underscore, emphasize, improve, and
strengthen the values for which we stand. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I listened to this whole debate on term
limits with some interest. I am well aware of the fact that the
Republican leadership has tried to set this up so that nobody can
introduce any amendments. The Republican leadership has filed for
cloture within 5 minutes of beginning proceedings and is apparently
going to do everything possible to block anybody from raising
questions.
I succeeded a Republican Senator. Everybody who has ever been elected
from Vermont has succeeded a Republican Senator because I am the only
Democrat our State has ever elected. We are the only State in the Union
that has elected only one, and, for better or worse, that is me. My
predecessor, a distinguished Republican, was elected the year I was
born and served until I arrived here. This Republican Senator was
considered the dean of the Senate. The fact that he served from the
year I was born until I came here probably gives some sense of term
limits in our State.
Frankly, I have a great deal of respect for our distinguished
majority leader, Senator Dole. On term limits, I would have only gotten
a chance to serve with him for one term, way back in the 1970's. Then
he would have been gone. The distinguished President pro tempore,
Senator Thurmond, who held elective office long before I was born, I
would not have gotten a chance to serve with him at all. In fact,
virtually the whole Republican leadership would have been long gone by
now.
What I worry about when the amendment is written so as not to apply
to current Members is that this is a little bit of a shell game on the
American public. It is a bit of a con. It was probably not meant that
way, but it amounts to this: You could have a Senator who has been here
for, say, three or four terms and vote for term limits. They are up for
election this year, knowing that a constitutional amendment cannot be
ratified in time this year. That same three- or four-term Senator if
reelected this year, could proceed to serve that 6-year term and two
additional 6-year terms, 18 more years, after voting to impose a 12-
year limit on all those who are first elected to the Senate after the
amendment is ratified. Or somebody who had served five terms, say, a
Senator who has been here for 30 years, could vote for term limits and,
having served 30 years, serve 18 more. Then they would say, ``I am for
term limits.'' Now, be honest. Vote for it or do not vote for it.
Everybody has to make a determination.
There are, of course, term limits. Every 2 years in the House of
Representatives there is a term limit. It is called an election. In my
State, every 2 years there is a term limit for Governor, and virtually
every other office has a term limits. It is called an election. Every 6
years is a term limit for Members of the Senate. It is called an
election.
However, do not call this proposed constitutional amendment one of
term limits when it is set up in such a way that most of the Senators
in this place could vote for it, and no matter how many terms they had
already served, could count on serving for 12 to 18 more years. You
have Senators who served here before people were born, who could be
serving here long after they are retired under these so-called term
limits. Now, that is not term limits.
Make sure that the American public understands, under this proposal,
any Senator, no matter how long he or she has been here, could vote for
this, see it go into the Constitution and still be in office for
another 12 to 18 years, even if they have already been here for 20
years, 30 years or whatever else it might be.
I hope, Mr. President, that even though the Republican leadership--
all of whom have served here for many more than two terms--have done
their best to block any chance for my amendment to come up, I hope they
would change their mind and realize that blocking a vote on it might
appear a tad hypocritical to those people who live in the real world.
Those are the people who do not rely on their elective office, who do
not, as the distinguished Senator from Missouri said, live in
[[Page S3725]]
think tanks, but the men and women of the streets of Vermont, Missouri,
or anywhere else. Those people may see a bit of hypocrisy if they see
somebody who has been here for 24 or 30 years, whatever, vote for a
proposal which would still allow them to serve for another 12 to 18
years, and call it term limits.
I think the American public will see through that hypocrisy,
especially when the American public knows that they can set term limits
anytime they want, every single election. That is something to keep in
mind.
Some say we do not have it in our power to pass term limits. We have
it in our power. Every one of us has to file petitions or take steps in
our States to qualify for election. Any one of us can say, ``I am
setting term limits. I am leaving at the end of this term.'' No
constitutional amendment is needed to that. It is term limits.
I wonder how many Senators are here who are now in their fourth,
fifth, or sixth term, who every single time they run say, ``We need
term limits, we need term limits, and I will keep on saying it for the
next 20 years, we need term limits.'' They could limit it simply by
leaving.
Do not call this amendment term limits, where a Senator in his third,
fourth, fifth or sixth term could vote for this and still run for three
more terms. That is not term limits. That is a bumper-sticker slogan.
That is a political fundraising device. That is rhetoric for the
campaign trail. But that is not term limits.
Term limits are imposed when Senators, and we have had a number on
both sides of the aisle, who say, ``I came here to serve two terms, or
one term, or three terms,'' and then leave when they say they would. We
have had many, many Senators on both sides of the aisle who were facing
an easy reelection, but said, ``This is the time to go. I leave.''
Ultimately, in my State, where my Republican predecessor was elected
the year I was born and served until I arrived, enjoying greater
popularity every year, this is reflective of what happened. I think
every so often we have to make it clear what is really happening here.
I would vote to bring this amendment up for a vote. I think we should.
But we should bring up each aspect of it and not do as the Republican
leadership has: Stack the deck and do everything possible to block the
chance that somebody might bring up an amendment that would raise a
real question. Let us test whether those who claim they are for term
limits would be for such limits being applied to them. Let them vote on
something that might limit them at the end of this term, not at the end
of this term plus another 18 years.
What this is, this amendment is an incumbent's protection limit bill,
not real term limits. This is saying that somebody elected in the
future will have term limits, but those of us who are already here
after several terms, we are protecting ourselves for another 18 years.
If you are brandnew out there, a few years from now, we will term
limits for you, but, boy, we are sure protecting us. Because if we have
been in the Senate for 24 years or 30 years or 36 years, we are going
to make sure we can stay around for another 18 years. We have protected
ourselves in this.
No one who votes for term limits should stand up and say, ``See how
brave I am.'' Go back to the American public and say, ``We are so
brave, we limited somebody else to two terms, but for those still
there, we have another three terms.''
We will limit the men and women out there who have not yet run to two
terms, but we will protect every single term we have already served and
give ourselves another two to three terms. That is not term limits,
that is campaign fodder, that is a bumper sticker, that is sloganeering
rhetoric, but it is not term limitation at all.
____________________