[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.

                          ____________________