[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 52 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3772-S3786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS
The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment before the body is amendment
3698.
Is there further debate?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I want to
thank my friend, the Senator from Michigan, for his outstanding
analysis. I also want to express my sympathy to him and to those
citizens of Michigan whose children were victims of the latest
bombings. I commend him for his work in this area and thank him for
bringing our attention to this matter.
Mr. President, I want to talk about term limits. I want to mention
some important reasons why I think it is essential that Members of this
body support the opportunity of the States to ratify a constitutional
amendment.
The Senate does not have the authority to amend the Constitution. We
merely have the authority to extend to the States the right to ratify a
proposed amendment to the Constitution. To vote against this proposal
is basically to say that the wisdom of the
[[Page S3773]]
Congress is so superior to that of the States that we should not even
entrust them with decisionmaking power on limited tenure.
Why, then, should we have congressional term limits? Why should we
send to the States this opportunity for ratification? I believe we
ought to because that potential for ratification is consistent with the
central values of this Republic, the central political themes and
understandings of our democracy. The first of those is that we are
representatives of the people. We come here to provide the people a
voice. And while we are to exercise our own judgment, we are to
represent the people of the State or district from which we hail.
What do the people of America think about term limits? Well, the
polling data indicates that 74 percent of them favor term limits. And
41 States have imposed term limits on their Governors. As it relates to
city councils, many cities--from New York to Los Angeles--have imposed
term limits on their own city councils.
As you look at the political map, you find out that there is a
glaring hole in the term limits net: the U.S. Congress. It exists for
the President, not the Congress; it exists for Governors, for State
legislatures, for cities, counties, and towns. all kinds of things
across America. But there is one place where it has not existed.
There is another fundamental value of American culture that term
limits respects and reinforces. It is the value of access and
participation. When a few people believe they are the only people that
have the capacity to do a particular job, they tend to shut others out
of the process. The unfortunate effect of incumbency is that it has
closed down the system even further.
The American people are understanding folks. They have watched as 91
percent of the incumbents who run for office win reelection. That means
that a challenger has a 1-in-10 chance to defeat a sitting Member. Now,
you do not have to be a math wizard to understand that, in an open seat
situation, the two challengers have a 50 percent chance of winning.
Furthermore, the data suggests that when there is the prospect of an
open seat, the number of candidates increases exponentially. In other
words, there is a substantial broadening of the variety of choices that
the American people have from which to choose.
I think we ought to make sure that happens more and more frequently.
Those who study political science indicate that as you approach an open
seat race there are increasing numbers of individuals who prepare
themselves for the vacancy by offering themselves as candidates.
That is one of the reasons why I think the 6-year limit in the House
is so valuable. It would virtually guarantee that we would have
enhanced levels of choice for the American people in every elections.
It is also important to look at the history of term limits. I think
the word ``history'' is important here. So often people debate term
limits as if this were some theory that needs to be hashed out in the
think tanks before the American people could understand it. This is not
a decision made in a vacuum of facts or experience. It is a decision
made in an arena with which the American people are fully familiar.
The American people have a history of term limits. It is not the
passion of the moment. It is not the whim of a particular time. It is
an understanding about the way government works. And they have said,
yes, we want it for the Presidency of the United States. So you have
term limits for the Presidency of the United States.
Let me also say that I believe that those who indicate that there are
not enough qualified people in the country to replace qualified Members
of the Congress have a view of a talent pool in America which is unduly
shallow.
When George Washington walked away from the Presidency after his
first two terms in office he understood that America was a place filled
with knowledgeable citizens whose judgment and capacity would sustain
this Republic, and he did not allow himself to be swayed by the
arrogant nonsense that there are just a few people in America who are
bright enough, or capable enough, or sound enough to make decisions. He
understood that the tree of liberty would be nourished by an influx of
creativity that would be found as individuals stepped aside to return
to citizenship and as citizens stepped in to accept the
responsibilities of government.
It is high time that we had the same understanding of the talent pool
in the United States. The pool of available talent in this country is
incredibly deep. We have great resources. We have tremendous citizens.
There are outstanding persons, and we ought to tap them and call them
into the process. Then we ought to send ourselves home to live under
the very laws for which we vote.
I do not want to be a part of those who underestimate the strength
and the capacity of the people of this great land. We have a tremendous
capacity in America. We should open the door of self-government to
those individuals so that they can participate in government by virtue
of coming in and being a part of the U.S. Congress.
What would the United States look like if we were to have had term
limits? What kind of changes would there be? Mind you that I am
prepared to say that I believe we ought to make the decision about term
limits based on the fundamental values of this country, based on the
sense that we ought to have open access and that we ought to have more
participation based on the fact that we represent the people.
But what would America look like? When Stephen Moore of the Cato
Institute conducted a study, he indicated that we would have had a
balanced budget amendment, something we have yet to get. In 1990, 1992,
and in 1994, we would have approved the balanced budget amendment.
Not surprisingly, the line-item veto, which we only passed this
month, would have been enacted more than 10 years ago, in 1985. Think
of the thousands, tens of thousands, think of the millions of dollars
that might well have been saved had we had the capacity to knock pork
out of Federal budgets as early as 1985. I believe that newcomers do
reflect something special about the process.
Let me make another point. Some people have said that we need
experienced people in Washington. I could not agree more. But I have to
say that I do not believe that the only experience we need in
Washington is government experience. Some of the very best Members of
this body are individuals who have brought a wealth of experience from
the private sector. To suggest that we need people who have years and
years of experience in government is a bankrupt idea which fails to
understand that experience happens in places outside the public sector.
A couple of other things that are significant to me about the Cato
study.
And what are the things which would have failed? You guessed it. The
last two tax increases and the last two congressional pay increases
would not have passed the Congress. Interesting. All of the things that
would restrain Government would have passed, and the things which fund
Government would not have.
It comes down to this fundamental set of values as to whether
government exists for the benefit of government or whether government
exists for the benefit of the people. In ``The Federalist Papers,''
Madison wrote of a Congress with a ``habitual recollection of its
dependence on the people.'' Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a
democracy where the citizens all too frequently have a constant
recollection of their dependence on government.
Just think of the agriculture bill we passed early this month.
Farmers were waiting to find out what they could plant. It was a
country dependent upon government, instead of a government that was
dependent upon, and cognizant of, the citizens.
The principal value here is that we recognize what it is the people
want. In this case, it is a constitutional amendment on term limits. I
believe we should reinforce a reform which would promote access and
participation, and which would level the playing field so that
individuals who offer themselves for service have a fair shot.
One last footnote. A term-limited Senate would be a different Senate
because it would require the Chamber to operate on the basis of merit,
rather than seniority. While I respect the individuals whose dedication
to their country has allowed them to serve this body, I do not concede
that they are,
[[Page S3774]]
by virtue of their service, the most qualified to lead committees or
determine policy. I believe we should think about developing, and would
develop if we had term limits, a leadership framework based on merit,
not rank seniority. Incidentally, the 3-2 constitutional amendment I
proposed would do just that.
Mr. President, it is time for us to respect the values of the
American people; 70 percent of them would like to consider a term
limits constitutional amendment. The time for us to extend them that
opportunity is now.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
(Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Missouri. He
has been a leader in this fight for a long time. His points are so well
made. He mentioned the precedent set by George Washington, that after
serving two terms, purportedly got on his horse and rode out of town
never to return to Washington. People asked him to stay, but he knew
better. He knew there were other people who were qualified to serve,
and because he left when he did, other people were able to serve. He
set a good example.
The same example was set by Thomas Jefferson. He served two terms
back when a President could serve for as long as they could continue
getting elected. So this is the example that was set for us. And, of
course, the people who were in the Congress at that time would not have
thought of serving many, many years in Congress. They were citizen
legislators who came to town to interrupt their career and not make a
career. So I think that the Senator's point is very well made.
I see my colleague from Colorado is in the Chamber. I yield the
floor.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for his
leadership on this issue, as well as the distinguished Senator from
Missouri. Both of these first-term Senators have made an enormous
difference in the body, and I think their service speaks volumes about
the talent that is available in this Nation.
Mr. President, this is a hotly debated item, and while opinion in
this country overwhelmingly supports term limits, it is not a secret
that it is not the most popular item ever presented in this Chamber. We
have had difficulty getting votes. The first vote on this was in 1947
by a Senator from Texas. He succeeded in getting one vote--his own--and
it was a long time before it was raised again.
In the last several years, we have been able to get several votes,
but they have never been clear and on the point. I think we should note
at least that Senator Dole's leadership provides the first opportunity
in the history of our country to have this issue aired in this Chamber
in a clear fashion. He is the first majority leader of the Senate to
bring it to the floor and hopefully provide us with the opportunity for
a vote. It is a courageous thing to do because there is enormous
pressure in this body and outside this body not to allow it to come
forward.
Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote a friend and he suggested
some interesting things. He said three things were missing in the
American Constitution: a Bill of Rights, of course, which was passed
later on; limits on the tenure of the chief executive--he was about 150
years too early, but he got that right, because, as all the Senators
are well aware, that was eventually passed and added to our
Constitution--and lastly, the third item Thomas Jefferson mentioned was
rotation in office for Members of Congress.
What prophetic words. Two of the three have come to pass. Mr.
President, I believe with all my heart the third will come to pass as
well.
Many Members for whom I have deep respect have spoken on this subject
and expressed real regret about this issue. To some, they have taken
the issue personally, as a question of the value of their service or a
question of the value of their continued effort to serve this country.
Speaking for myself, but I believe speaking for others as well, no
such intent or castigation of their service is intended at all. As a
matter of fact, there could be nothing more American than putting a
limit on power. That is really what this is all about. It is not just
about the example of Cincinnatus returning to his farm after serving
his country. It goes to the very core and very heart of what Americans
believe about government. We are unique. We are not simply the longest
surviving democracy in the history of mankind, but we are a shining
example to the rest of the world of what can blossom forth when people
are free, what can happen when the power of the Nation is primarily
centered in the individual and not in those who govern.
The world's history, recorded for some 4,000 to 5,000 years, is
replete with examples of people who performed great service. It is also
replete with examples of countries where power corrupted. Americans,
when we drafted our Constitution, were more aware than any people in
the history of mankind of the value of governments in the past. The
writings of Polybius, Montesquieu, and Cicero were on the minds and
words and lips of the drafters of the Constitution.
They understood the cycle of government that Polybius had observed,
so many, many centuries ago; the tendency of power to corrupt. The
tendency of democracy to turn into an aristocracy, ruling by the few;
and the tendency of an aristocracy to devolve into a dictatorship, and
the corruption that comes from dictatorship; followed by anarchy and
then the process starting all over again.
Those evils were on the minds and in the hearts of the people who
drafted our Constitution. They sought for something different and
greater than anything in the history of mankind, any government in the
history of mankind. They sought to find a government that would last.
They sought to find a government that would provide the blessings of
tranquility and order and liberty; that would not be simply temporary,
as every government had been in the past, but that would be as close to
permanent as we could achieve.
They believed that reliance on the individual and a stable form of
government could bring about blessings to mankind that had never before
been seen. This great experiment in democracy, in republican democracy,
has shown exactly what they had hoped for. The very essence of what
American government is all about is an understanding that power
corrupts and a firm belief that, to have a stable, lasting government,
we need to limit power. We need to limit power because power can
corrupt and destroy and harm the stability and the freedom that we so
highly prize.
For those who think that term limits is out of touch with the
American experience, who have not read the words of Jefferson, who have
not looked at the history of this country, where the pattern was for a
turnover in Congress--for those who have not focused on that and
somehow doubt that term limits is in the tradition of the American
experience, think about the limits we put on power. It is the very
essence and the very genius of what the American experience is. We
designed a Government where the House is able to check the Senate and
the Senate check the House. We do not allow a rush to judgment. We
think a longer view, a more thorough analysis, can be beneficial. Is it
slower? Yes. Does it limit one body's power? Yes. Would the Senate be
more efficient without a House? I suspect you could get an argument on
that. But our founders thought the essence was to limit power to cause
good deliberation and also prevent corruption.
It is not just the House and the Senate that balance each other. It
is an executive that has the power of a veto. And it is not just the
executive and the Congress that face limitations, we have a Supreme
Court and a court system that limits our power as well. The founders
thought long and hard and they set up a system of government whose very
essence, whose very core is a limitation on power.
They were concerned, some would say obsessed, with preventing the
corruption that comes with too much power so they set up a system that
puts its primary focus on individuals and not in government, not in the
[[Page S3775]]
hands of a few but in the hands of many. And what power we gave to the
Federal Government we limited.
It is not just the checks and balances in the Federal system that
exist, but a separation of powers between the Federal and the State
level. Specific provisions, article X, the Bill of Rights, leaves those
powers to individuals and States not specifically given to the Federal
Government. All Members know this. They are familiar with it. But to
say or to think for one moment that term limits is not the very essence
of the spirit of the American experience of government is to miss the
point. Our whole approach has been an understanding of the corruption
power can bring about, and the need to make sure--the need to make
absolutely sure--that no one can rule without limitations. This is not
an aberration. This is not a change of the spirit of the American
government. This term limit is the embodiment of it.
Some will say wait a minute, we have gotten along pretty well without
it. For those, I suggest they look at the history of this Nation. For
one, term limits was not included in the Constitution because people
never thought Congress would turn into a lifetime career. Service in
the U.S. Congress was thought to be just that, a service. One of the
big issues early on was raising of the pay to $6. For that they threw
out most of the Congress, for that huge pay increase. Service in the
House and the Senate was thought to be a time where you would serve
your country, not gain financially. That has changed. Some will say
Members of Congress are overpaid. Others, many here, think they are
underpaid. But whether you believe we are overpaid or underpaid, there
is no question that the salary for a Member of Congress is much
different than what it once was.
There is no question that it is a good living compared to any
standard in America today. Are there people here who could earn more?
Yes, I hope so. There are some who could earn less on the outside. But
the point is this. Serving in Congress has changed from a period of
service that costs people money to serve, where the remuneration was
much less than what they could get on the outside, to a compensation
that, even by the most meager description, is fairly adequate;
something quite good.
The phenomenon of people serving a long period in Congress has
accompanied a number of things. One, a dramatic increase in
compensation, and a dramatic increase in the power that is here.
Service now is different than it was in the 1800's. There are financial
motives that did not exist.
Do we want to go back to those days where Members of Congress
received little or nothing? No, perhaps not. But neither should we
close our eyes to the impact of that change. The simple fact is, this
country has changed. Because of the power and because of the rewards,
people now wish to serve long periods of time.
There are three areas that I believe will change dramatically if we
pass term limits. Here they are.
First of all, I believe the background of the people who serve in
this body in both the House and the Senate will change if we have term
limits. One need only look at the lengthy service of time that some
Members have. But even more significant, I think, is that when we
debate legislation we debate without the benefit of people having fresh
experiences in the real world with regard to that legislation. I cannot
tell you how many times I have come and listened to millionaires
discuss the minimum wage, when they never held a minimum wage job in
their life. Let me tell you, if you got through school by working and
paying your own way with a series of minimum wage jobs, you have a
different view of minimum wage jobs than if you inherited your money.
If spring break meant you had a chance to get a second job to make
your tuition payment instead of taking a yacht tour on your daddy's
yacht, you have a different view of what that issue is.
If you are concerned about welfare, I can tell you, if you have had
to work for a living, if you have had to scratch for a living, you have
a different view of what welfare is and ought to be than if you have
been wealthy all your life.
If you are talking about regulating businesses and jobs, you have a
different view if you have been subject to that regulation. Members of
Congress for the first time--and I think it is of great benefit to this
Nation--are now being subjected to the same laws, or almost the same
laws--we are not quite there but we are close--almost the same laws
that working men and women in this country are. Does that make a
difference? You bet it makes a difference. I see, day after day,
thoughtful, reasonable, intelligent people on this floor talk about
imposing regulations on the working men and women of this country.
Mr. President, with due respect, I cannot help but think if they had
actually had those jobs, if they had actually done that work, they
would have a much different view. I believe term limits will change
some of that. Term limits will mean some turnover in the people who
serve. I think it is much more likely we will have people serve here
who have actually had working experiences in the areas they attempt to
regulate.
I see the distinguished Senator from Tennessee here, a physician, in
our midst. All of us have grown to respect and admire him greatly as we
have gotten to know him and seen the integrity that he brings to his
job. But he brings something more than just a bright mind and great
integrity. He brings firsthand experience of his profession as a
physician. It is not a secret that when Members have questions about
that, they turn to the Senator from Tennessee for a practical view. Do
they always agree with him? No. But they at least have access to
someone who has actually done it, who understands it, who has been
there firsthand. How much more effective this body could be if we had
more Members who had real lifetime experiences like the Senator from
Tennessee.
I believe, as I listen to these issues debated, if we had that, we
would have much more effective laws. One thing else I would suggest. If
we had people who worked for a living and a real turnover, I do not
believe we would have had 65,000 pages of new regulations put in the
Federal Register last year.
For Members who are not aware of it, that is what it was--over 65,000
pages of new regulations were added last year. That is not the total
regulations that Americans are subjected to; that is just what we added
last year.
If you sat down today to read the regulations to which you are
subjected and for which you can go to prison if you violate them or at
the very minimum face heavy fines, if you simply wanted to find out
what it is you are required to do, and you read 300 words a minute,
which is pretty good for regulations, and you read all day long, 8
hours a day, with no coffee breaks, 5 days a week with no holidays and
52 weeks a year with no vacations, you would barely get halfway
through. You literally could not read them if you devoted yourself full
time, and those are what we expect the American people to follow. That
is just the new ones; that is not the ones that are already on the
books.
(Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.)
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, one of the great benefits of term limits is
to bring into this body a group of people who have a broader wealth of
practical experience. By that turnover, I think what we will find is
that we have become better legislators.
There are a few subjects, no matter the most liberal Democrat or
conservative Republican who, if they sit down and get their facts
right, cannot come to agreement on. Yes, there are differences; yes,
there is a different philosophy. But generally when men and women have
the same basis of facts, they are able to come to a similar logical
conclusion.
I believe one of the great advantages of term limits is it will give
our Members broader background, a greater basis of personal facts and,
as a consequence, they will be able to work better together. I think
you are going to find them able to do a much better job.
There is no society in the history of mankind that has ever produced
65,000 pages of new regulations every year, not Hammurabi, not Napoleon
with his code, nobody ever came close.
If we think we can continue to be effective and competitive in a
world market when we have committed to tying ourselves in redtape and
regulations, we are dreaming. That is not going to change until we have
legislators who have had real-life experiences. That is
[[Page S3776]]
one reason I think term limits will be a great blessing for this
Nation.
Second, it is my observation, from having spent 10 years in the House
and 6 years in the Senate, that unlimited terms has led to a corruption
of the process. Mr. President, I do not make that charge lightly. Let
me be specific about it.
One of the political action committees or groups that supported me
when I ran for an open seat for the Senate was very frank. They said,
``If we had an incumbent that had a decent record, we would never have
supported you, no matter how much we like you, no matter how you would
vote, no matter what you would do. Our policy is to support
incumbents.''
Is it a good policy on their part? I do not think it is good for the
country, but it is probably good for their narrow issues. I do not mean
to give shortchange to those issues. I agree with this particular group
and many of the things they do, but not with their announced policy to
only support incumbents. Is that unusual? Tragically, it is not. The
reality is many of our political action committees support incumbents
if they have a voting record that is close to what they want.
Instead of being viable competitive races, what we have seen is a
system where the funding for campaigns has become huge and incumbents
have had an enormous advantage. Let us not kid ourselves. Anyone who
says, ``Look, we don't need term limits because democracy will take
care of the process,'' has not looked at the facts.
In 1 year in the House, we had more people indicted than we had
incumbents defeated. Let me repeat that. One of the years in the House,
we had more Members of Congress indicted than we had incumbents
defeated. Does that mean some people who were indicted got reelected?
Yes, that is exactly what that means.
Mr. President, this is not a fair fight; this is not a fair process.
Incumbents have an incredible advantage. Those who say, ``We don't need
term limits because the voters will take care of it,'' overlook the
fact of what happens when one candidate is on the air and can outspend
the other candidate 3 and 4 to 1. They are closing their eyes to the
reality. The simple fact is, as long as you have long-term incumbency,
you are going to have an enormous advantage for incumbents in this
Congress. We have corrupted the process.
In the House of Representatives, even in years when you have huge
turnovers, you have had more than 90 percent of incumbents reelected.
The Senate incumbency is of little less value, I suspect, because there
are slightly more competitive races. But make no mistake about it,
incumbents in the Senate have a huge advantage in terms of fundraising.
If you believe in viable, competitive races, you are going to want
term limits. The process has been corrupted and it is not going to
change until we put a limit on the number of terms a Member of Congress
may serve.
Third, Mr. President, I think there will be an advantage to this
Nation with term limits with regard to the pork-barrel spending. Let me
put it as succinctly as I can.
This Nation, in 1945, was the greatest creditor nation in the history
of the world. More people owed us more money than any in the history of
mankind. We produced 50 percent of the world's GNP. One nation, 6
percent of the world's population, produced half the world's products
and services, and we were the greatest creditor nation on the face of
the Earth.
Today, we are the biggest debtor nation on the face of the Earth. We
owe more money than any nation in the history of mankind.
How does that happen? How could thoughtful, reasonable people spend
themselves into potential insolvency? How could we set up trust funds
that promise benefits, require people to pay in for their whole life on
a chain-letter financing scheme? If private insurance companies did
what the Federal Government does, we would put them in jail for fraud.
How could this happen? All of us know how it has happened. All of us
know how this spending went wild. It happened because we set up a
system where people would be in place for long periods of time, and the
way to get along was to go along.
Members have heard this on the floor. This does not shock or surprise
anyone. Perhaps someone will come down and say, Hank, that's not true,
but, Mr. President, it is true.
I cannot mention how many times I have been in debate on farm bills
and we will offer an amendment to eliminate the honey program. Some
Members sincerely believe, if we did not have a subsidy program for
honey, that bees would lose interest in flowers. Perhaps their parents
did not give them a talk about the birds and the bees. But, they either
believed that or they voted for the honey program for another reason,
and that reason, if you review the debate, is pretty clear.
People said, ``Look, this may not be the best program in the world,
but if you do not vote for the honey program, I will not vote for your
cotton program.'' And, ``If you don't vote for the cotton program, I
won't vote for the tobacco program.'' And ``If you don't vote for the
tobacco program, we won't vote for the peanut program.''
Mr. President, how does this happen? Everybody here knows that is
what happened. Everybody knows and understands how we got into these
silly programs. We got into these silly programs because people said,
``I can get what I want for my State if I will simply support these
programs for other States.''
Term limits make a big difference in that. Are you going to go
against the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who you know is
going to be there for another 20 years and you know that if you ever
want anything out of that Appropriations Committee, that person, that
man or woman, is going to remember you and is going to penalize you?
The simple fact is, the majority of Members of Congress over the last
quarter century, and perhaps the last 50 years, have not done it. It is
part of how we got into this circumstance. The pork-barrel spending,
spending not on what each of us felt in our heart was a good program--
we have passed programs that are nonsensical.
How do you defend a subsidy program for tobacco, for heaven's sake? I
do not think anybody comes here thinking that makes sense--maybe there
are some--but it gets passed and it stays in law. And it does, not
because people think it is such a great idea, but because they know to
get along you have to go along.
Mr. President, if you have term limits the world changes. Suddenly
the person who could retaliate against you, if you did not support
every one of his appropriations or her appropriations is not there
permanently. Yes, you may not get what you want this year, but next
year or the year after there will be a new chairman, there will be a
rotation, there will be fresh ideas, there will be new people, there
will be a turnover in thoughts and ideas and personnel and the ability
to enforce the go-along, get-along rule will be dramatically reduced.
Will it be ended? No. I wish there was a way to end it. But this will
dramatically reduce the ability of people to enforce a go-along, get-
along policy. It will dramatically cut back on pork barrel spending.
Mr. President, I am persuaded that all three of these things will
happen if we have term limits. We will have much more knowledgeable
people. We will eliminate some of the corruption in the process by
having a turnover rather than having the built-in advantage for
incumbents. We will strike a blow at pork barrel spending in a way that
will be more effective than anything that is currently being done.
But, Mr. President, I am persuaded not just by these three things,
but by something much more important. There are people who can come to
this body and serve and keep their confidence and keep their
independence and keep their integrity. I salute them. Many serve in
this body right now, and America is a better place for it. But we must
decide whether or not it is better to have a rotation of those who
serve in public office. It is better to have a turnover. Will some
great talent be lost? Of course there will. But, Mr. President, some
great talent will be found. This is not a zero-sum game. For every
person who retires we bring in someone new with fresh, new vibrant
ideas and new experiences.
This Nation was founded on the precept that we will reflect the will
of the people. Almost 80 percent of the American people in every survey
that is
[[Page S3777]]
found support this idea. Some surveys go as low as 75, others to 85 and
90. But the reality is the American people support term limits. They
support that because they do not believe that anyone in American
Government should be that powerful or that this should be a lifetime
job.
I believe, Mr. President, we will find an enormous benefit to the
American public with term limits. Is it going to pass this time? I do
not know. The vote count seems to indicate that we are short. But, Mr.
President, I do believe it will pass. I do believe Thomas Jefferson's
third suggestion for the Republic will be enacted. I believe we will be
a stronger, greater, more productive and creative people because of it.
I yield back, Mr. President.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of
Senator Brown. He has outlined the issue very, very well, as has the
Presiding Officer, and as others.
Mr. President, as Americans from across this great Nation demand true
congressional reform and greater accountability from their elected
officials, I rise today to strongly support this resolution which would
impose term limits on Congress.
When I ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992, I made a
firm commitment to the voters of Minnesota's Sixth District that I
would support Federal term limits. When I ran for the Senate in 1994, I
made that same commitment. And amidst a political climate of voter
distrust and disgust with the system, I firmly believe that my strong
support for term limits is one of the reasons I won both of those
elections.
On January 5, 1993, after I was sworn into public office for the
first time, the very first thing I did was cosponsor a bill to
establish term limits for Members of Congress: two 6-year terms for
Senators, and six 2-year terms for Members of the House.
After 2 years in the House, and now into my second year of serving in
the Senate, my enthusiasm for term limits has not wavered. If anything,
I am even more convinced that congressional term limits would be the
single most important reform measure Congress could pass this session.
When we look at the problems facing our Nation today, and the
inability of Congress to deal with our skyrocketing budget deficit and
national debt, much of the responsibility rests upon career
politicians, because studies have shown, the longer elected officials
are in Washington, the more they come to believe that government has
all the answers. More spending will solve the problems.
The longer they serve in Congress, the more likely they are to
support even larger spending programs which means they believe--maybe
they have been here too long--that Congress or Government has all the
answers, not the individual.
Congress is no longer the body of the people that was envisioned by
our Founding Fathers. Instead of citizen legislators, it has become a
body of professional politicians whose ultimate goal, again, is to
spend the entire balance of their careers in public office. Public
service has become the basis of their way of life. Again, I would like
to add, public service in itself is not bad. But, again, too much power
or control in the hands of too few for too long is bad.
But when individuals have a vested interest in maintaining their
elected positions, they are hardly the people you should entrust to
reduce the size of Government and reform the institution that keeps
them fed.
Career politicians too often put their own short-term personal
interest in seeking reelection ahead of the long-term good of the
country.
Too often, they are the first to cave in to special interests and too
often, career politicians are the last people in Washington who really
want to cut spending.
And again, statistics show, the longer a person serves in Congress,
the more spending he or she supports, because they believe Washington
has all the answers.
During the 1980's, it was easier to remove a member of the Soviet
Politburo than it was to remove a Member of the U.S. Congress.
The arrogance of power exhibited by these career politicians has led
many voters to become disenchanted, frustrated with Congress' inability
or unwillingness to put aside personal motives of protecting political
careers and honestly deal with the Federal Government's budget
problems.
Fortunately, Mr. President, times have changed. Some of the most
ardent opponents of term limits are no longer among us. I believe one
of the reasons for this change is the commitment of so many of our new
Senators and Representatives to the concept of term limits. And it is a
message that resonates mightily across this country. National polls
have shown time and time again that the American public overwhelmingly
supports term limits.
Throughout my campaign in 1994, I spoke with voters across my great
State--Minnesotans young and old, Republican and Democrat, from factory
workers to corporate executives. And these individuals impressed upon
me the importance of term limits.
Opponents of term limits claim that Congress will lose effective
leaders, which it will. I will say there are many who have served many
years and served well, but, at the same time, Congress will gain
effective new Members, who will take up where others have left off. In
the private sector, many corporations and factories replace their
CEO's, every 5 to 10 years, mainly to get new life, new ideas, and new
enthusiasm, new direction for their business, times change and needs
change.
In the words of former Minnesota Congressman Bill Frenzel, ``All the
titans of Congress were pea-green freshmen once. They were good when
they got there. Experience did not make them smarter. It just gave them
more staff and made them harder to say no to.'' Like Congressman
Frenzel, I, too, believe that ``Congressional term limits would restore
balance to our system by extending to the legislative branch the noble
precedent of term limits applied by the 22d amendment to the executive
branch only. Both branches need limits.''
The 1994 elections were a mandate for change. Establishing term
limits will deliver on a promise we made to the American people. It was
a promise, I can assure you, from which this Minnesota Senator will not
back down. Because service in this institution should be exactly what
our forefathers intended it to be--that is, a temporary period of
service to the Nation, followed by a return to our jobs, to the family
business or to other careers, a return home, to live under the laws he
or she helped to enact.
We talk about the lack of faith Americans have in Congress and those
who serve here. We joke about those polls which show Members of
Congress at the lowest levels when it comes to the public trust. But,
Mr. President, it is not a joke. We have got to restore the public
confidence which has been stripped away by years of abuse by powerful,
lifelong politicians.
Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that term limits are a first
step toward restoring that trust. I believe that is a vital step. I
urge my colleagues to support the passage of this resolution which will
go a long way toward restoring the faith of the American people in
their elected representatives here in Washington.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank our friend and colleague,
Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, for what he is doing and the way he
is doing it. He does it out of the utmost sincerity, the utmost
authenticity. I have known him a long time, since back in the days when
he worked with our leader, Howard Baker, in a different role. He ran on
this issue. A lot of people did. This was just one of many issues that
he laid himself out to the voters on. He said, ``I believe in this.''
And they said, ``We believe in you.'' So that is why he is here.
There are those in both parties who would hope to avoid this measure,
obviously. I want to indicate my strongest
[[Page S3778]]
support for this measure which is offered by our friend, to limit the
terms of service in the U.S. Congress--contentious, a bitter pill for
some, difficult to grasp for others, but seen pretty clearly by the
people of the United States, especially in my own State, where 77
percent of the people voted for term limits. Of course, they did not do
that when I was running for my third term. But I was always very, very
much in favor of limitation of terms, as I say, until I got to my third
one. Then I had a lapse, just a light lapse, and now I am restored. I
am back. Of course, not running again, but I will get to that in proper
context.
Let me tell you why I am here to support Senator Thompson. I did not
come quickly or early to this position. I came painfully to this
position about term limits. I really thought they were a mistake at
first. I say facetiously--obviously, when I ran for my third term, but
I cannot help but notice now there is a certain strain in some
editorial commentary about this measure, implying that it is some kind
of ``feel-good'', toothless symbolic action, a way of diverting us from
our real challenges. Saying if we would only do our work, ``if you
would just do your work, you would not need all these remarkable dodges
and sophistries.''
I cannot disagree with those charges any more strongly than I do
right now. I will briefly describe for my colleagues the real-world
road which I took to my current opinion--book, page, and hymn number,
with no musical accompaniment. Here it is. My interest come only when I
first served this party in this Senate as the Republican whip--I hope
you hear this--when I became the whip, the second in my party serving
under this remarkable man, Senator Bob Dole, who I have the richest
admiration and regard for, in every respect. I served him loyally and
will continue to do that in any capacity that he would request of me--
here or whatever the endeavors of his life take him. It was when I was
the Republican whip that I began to appreciate the severe need for some
kind of term limitation.
Let me tell you how that work went on, even though many of my
colleagues know exactly what that work is, the work of the whip. We
would have a very tough vote ready on this floor. The troops would be
out, the deputy whips, and the leader would say, ``This is a critical
national issue,'' and I and my colleagues would go to each Senator and
say, ``This is a tough bill, but this is a critical national issue.
This is bigger than you, bigger than me, bigger than any individual
item. Are you with us?'' About once every 2 months, sometimes even once
a month, one of my colleagues would say, ``You know, I would love to do
that, but I can't, because if I do that, I'll be history. I'll be out
of here. I've got a tough campaign and you are asking me to cast this
vote--forget it. I'm gone if I vote that way. They will just use it
against me, and I'm out of here. I'll be history.''
So we would go down the list. Both parties do this--do not miss this.
I hope the American people do not miss it. OK, you go down the list and
say, ``This Senator is up for reelection. So we cannot ask too much of
him or her, that would be terrible. We cannot put the heat on them. But
this other Senator was just reelected. We can get him or her to go with
us,'' and so on, down the list. Everyone around here knows how very
solicitous we become of our colleagues on our own side of the aisle
when they have a tough reelection fight. That is the way this
remarkable arena works. Help so-and-so, he is coming up, get the heat
off of him, put it on this fellow who has 5 more years, and they will
forget his vote by the time it is time for his reelection. On and on it
goes. That is the way it is played.
On every even-numbered year, one-third of the Senate and the entirety
of the House is quaking in its political skin, afraid to cast any of
the really, really tough votes, because they dare not do anything but
cast the really political vote, the one, if it is called political, for
which there is only one reason, and that is to get reelected.
That is what I found. It was very clear to me what was happening.
There is this large number, every even-numbered year, all of the House
Members, a third of the Senate, a large number of legislators in
Washington, thinking too much about politics and not sufficiently about
principle and about the best interests of their Nation. It is no wonder
that it is terribly hard around here to take action against the
challenges that so vex this country.
That is what I observed. What I felt then and now, if we do term
limits, then after it kicks in--I shall tell you what you have after it
kicks in. You will have one-third of the U.S. Senate voting right. That
is what you will have. Then you go find 18 other people, and that will
give you 51. You can always find those other 18 people because they are
in that pool of about 40 Democrats and Republicans in this body who are
``always right there.'' They are always there. They are steady,
thoughtful, they watch, they sometimes do their partisan strut--often,
and we are all good at that--and they are always there. They are the
ones from whom you would draw 18 and then with the 33 you have voting
right with no pressure, you find the 18 out of the pool of 40 and move
on with the Nation's business.
The astonishing and truly regrettable aspect about all of this is,
even when there is a broad consensus about the nature of the problem,
pure politics will keep us from addressing it.
If you want a few examples, well, I just happened to drag a few in.
Case in point. This year, the Consumer Price Index--this is a pure
``no-brainer,'' and there was not a shred of substantive controversy
here until the senior citizens groups got worked up. Every economist
who testified before the Finance Committee said that it is overstated.
Every single one of them. Every budget analyst agrees that so long as
the Government indexes inflation at too high a rate, we will overspend
on COLA's--and in everything from Social Security to Federal
retirement, to military retirement. And we will also collect too little
in tax revenues as a consequence of improper indexing. That, my
friends, results in larger and larger deficits. This is no secret. We
all know this is the case.
There is not a thing that I will relate in these remaining minutes
that is not consistent with the facts. We all know this is the case.
The economists who have testified know it to be true. That CPI
overstates inflation by 0.7 to 2.2 percent. CBO knows it is true. OMB
knows it is true. And that is why neither of them is using CPI to index
our discretionary appropriations caps. I hope you heard that. No, they
both use a ``chain-weighted GDP index.'' I am going to try that one on
the floor. I know that is a mouthful. But if it is good enough for OMB
and CBO, surely it should be good enough for us, as we wander through
the wilderness here. So we will try that chain-weighted GDP index,
which will knock off about 0.4, and that will be a lot better progress
than what we are getting right now.
But the politics have been diagnosed as the problem. The President
does not want to offend anyone who might be receiving a COLA. I
understand that. Even if the COLA they are now getting is certifiably
too large and even though it has nothing to do with your net worth or
your income. Try that one. That is the way it works. It does not matter
what your net worth or your income is. CPI, Consumer Price Index--oh,
is that a COLA? They are not the same. Heed the words of our able
friend from New York, Senator Pat Moynihan, about how the distortion
has come about with the cost-of-living allowance and CPI. They do not
fit. But they have been fitted.
So even if the COLA is now certifiably too large, we do nothing. And
so the President, being the very savvy political person he is, in a
political year, intends to use this as a political weapon. A
Republican-controlled Congress will refuse to jump off the cliff, then,
because of that effect, not wanting to give him any political benefit.
As a consequence--both parties playing what is called partisan
politics--nothing gets done, even when we all agree that it is a must
and could be done without really setting back this country in any
sense. And a 1-percent reduction in the CPI--and nobody is suggesting
that--in 10 years lops $680 billion off the pile. It is a lot smaller
in 7 years, about $68 billion. So that shows you the exponential
growth, if 1 percent of the CPI would save $68 or $70 billion in 7
years in 10 years it will save you $680 billion. You are saying that is
impossible, but it is not. That is what is happening here, and that is
what we should address--and we do nothing.
[[Page S3779]]
When we did this and discussed it in the Bipartisan Commission on
Entitlement and Tax Reform, we actually, naively, thought that it would
be like falling off a log, to simply do something with the CPI, which
is so overstated at every turn. But, no, the AARP did not like that
idea at all. No, indeed. And the Commission for the Preservation of
Medicare and Medicaid thought that was an ugly trick. And so they will
help us administer it on into bankruptcy.
I am grateful to my colleagues for hearing me out, because I deal
with these issues regularly, and I have been talking about these things
all of my political life. This is not something new or some swan song
caper in the middle of the night. I am grateful for those who come up
and say, ``You are right, Al, we need to do something about CPI.'' I
wish I could count all of my colleagues who have said that; yet,
nothing gets done. How can that be?
The answer lies wholly in the area of political fear. That is a word
I want to use. The word is ``fear.'' Forget all the rest of it.
``Fear.''
So there is an example just right off the bat--and that is the meat
part of the bat, not the end--how term limits might immediately save
future taxpayers untold billions in deficit spending. One percent in 10
years would be $680 billion. And we are not even asking that.
So, as I say, in 1994, I served on the President's Bipartisan
Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. And like that movie, ``The
Man Who Knew Too Much,'' I almost wish I had not been appointed to do
it. I have shown you a copy of our report. This is the interim report.
This was approved by a vote of 30 to 1. Who was on this Commission? Who
were these dastardly people that were pointing out these things with
regard to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, bankruptcy in
the system? I will tell you who they were. Let me read the names:
Chairman Bob Kerrey and Vice Chairman John Danforth, two very fine men
that I have come to enjoy. Who was on the Commission? I am not going to
read the titles because the names will be so familiar: Bill Archer;
Dale Bumpers; Mike Castle; Eva Clayton; Thad Cochran; Chris Cox; Kika
de la Garza; Robert Denham; John Dingell; Pete Domenici; Tom Downey;
Sandra Freedman; Porter Goss; William Gray, former Congressman; Robert
Greenstein; Judd Gregg; Karen Horn; Tom Kean; Alex McMillan; Carol
Moseley-Braun; Daniel Patrick Moynihan; Pete Peterson; Harry Reid; Roy
Romer; Dan Rostenkowski; Martin Sabo; Jim Sasser; Myself; Richard
Trumka, and Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming. Those are the Members who served
on the Commission. Some did not attend any meetings. I think you might
be able to pick out one or two.
There we were. That is the work we did and we put out this statement.
It was signed by all but one of these people. I have shown you the
remarkable cross-pollinization of the issue with those people that I
just described and some of them we enjoy and work with every day. Then
why did we sign this--30 of 31 of us? It was because it is a report of
a statement of fact. It is not about ideas, not about ideology, not
about partisanship. These are facts.
One fact is very evident--and remember we were appointed by our
President--and that one fact is that we are on an unsustainable course.
We have locked into the law a huge promise of benefits that far exceed
our country's ability ever to pay. The unfunded mandates for these
programs will simply wipe us away. We all know this to be the case.
Largely due to the growth of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and
Federal retirement, this country stands, by the year 2012--now here is
what the report disclosed: That with no increase in revenues--that
means no more taxes, no more, never, never, ever no taxes--and having
done a perfect health care bill, which we know would--as we see in our
votes with regard to the Kassebaum-Kennedy proposal--be tough to do,
and ours is presently an incremental approach and has to be--but if we
were to do a ``perfect health care bill'' and no further taxes now, and
of course that would please all of our constituents. Then hear this
scenario;
Were this the case then in the year 2012, there will then be only
sufficient revenue--that is, money--to pay for Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security, Federal retirement, and interest on the national debt.
There will be not one penny for transportation, education, defense,
WIC, WIN, Head Start, NEA, NIH, the National Institutes of Health, or
anything else in this Government. Remember too--I do so hope the people
of America can remember that those of us in this body do not even vote
on 67 percent of the national budget. Those of us in the Congress of
the United States do not cast a single vote on 67 percent of the
national budget. It goes right on out the window, period Automatic
pilot. In 7 years we will not be even casting a vote on 73 percent of
the national budget. It will just be going out, being paid out and it
goes out regardless. It goes out without regard to means testing or
``affluence testing.'' It just gets paid out. It goes to people
regardless of their net worth or their income. Every year that we are
here--you have seen it, and I have seen it--we spend our time hacking
around on the Appropriations Committee on the only things we can find
that we can cut, which is defense, education, transportation, WIC, WIN,
Head Start, and we don't lay a hand on all the things we call
``mandatory spending.''
So we are trapped. We are trapping ourselves daily ever more deeply.
These things cannot be sustained. That is the situation which is
impervious to ideology, or philosophy. It really does not matter
whether your highest priority as an elected Senator is placed on a
strong national defense, or on the children, or on vaccinating our
kids, or the NIH, or the NEA, or roads, or whatever, or veterans, or
seniors, or whatever it is we most want to do ourselves--or on keeping
the size of the Federal Government within reasonable bounds.
It is a reality that we cannot escape unless we radically reduce the
growth of the largest entitlement programs.
What has been our response? The first response was to leave Social
Security ``off the table''. That is a remarkable thing to do--to leave
off the table an item that is $360 billion a year, and it is now ``off
the table.'' Both Republicans and Democrats did that. If one single
Senator can demonstrate to me that this was the result of substantive
critical analysis rather than political positioning, I would be most
intrigued to hear the rationale. The truth is we all know better--as we
admit in a jocular way to each other when the cameras are not rolling.
Let me show you Social Security, the one we left off the table, which
we are never supposed to talk about. I do like to talk about it. I take
these charts to my town meetings to ward off the gray-haired cat in the
back of the room. When I ask for a final question, I will often say,
``I will take a final question from the gray-haired gentleman in the
back.'' Then the fellow will respond, ``I'd rather have my hair turn
gray than turn loose,'' which is disturbing, when you look at my
hairline, that I have to take that kind of terrible abuse.
So then he will say, ``I put in it from the beginning. Simpson, I
want it all out, every bit of it. That is the contract.'' I say, ``By
George, you are right. I agree with you. You put in from the beginning,
did you?'' ``Yes, I did.'' ``Great. Let us then review for everybody
here in the town meeting how much you put in because, if you put it in
it from the beginning''--and any 64-year-old, gray-haired cat like me
cannot escape this because we all put in the same. ``So, if you put it
in from the beginning, you never put in over 30 bucks a year for the
first 8 years. And then you never put in over 174 bucks a year for the
next 18 years, ladies and gentleman.'' Not one of them did.
Then, finally you got stuck 300 bucks a year, 800 bucks a year,
$1,000 a year, $1,500 a year, $2,000 a year, $3,000 a year, and in the
1980's, $4,000. Now I think I am putting in $5,000 a year, which is my
Medicare and Social Security.
So when I am all finished up with contributions of payroll tax'' if I
retire next year at 65, I will have put into the Social Security system
about $55,000 in an entire lifetime. I will get it all back in 6\1/2\
years. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that. And if you retired
in the 1980's, the early 1980's, you got everything back you put in,
plus interest, in only 2\1/2\ years. And those are people who still
show up at your town meeting.
There is no means test of benefits, no affluence test of their COLA,
and that
[[Page S3780]]
is the way that is. But take a look at this.
This is a chart about me, Alan K. Simpson. This is a blow-up of my
Social Security earnings record for a lifetime. It started between 1937
and 1950. I went to work at the Cody Bakery at the age of 14; got the
Social Security card that year. My particular role in that particular
confectionery was to place the pink glob in the midst of that white,
crusty sugary business on top of the mushy sweet roll. I have never
touched one of those since; never will eat another one of those because
that was my job--plop, plop, plop. I was paid $583, to which I coughed
up a real chunk into Social Security--5 bucks that year. The next year
he paid me less--for they found what I had been doing with the
confectioneries.
Then I went off to the University of Wyoming and paid nothing because
I never earned over $3,600 in a summer. I worked every summer, but I
never earned $3,600. Remember, ladies and gentleman, you could make a
million bucks, but you never paid anything over this lid here. So, if
you made 40,000 bucks this year, you never paid any Social Security
over $4,800 in this year. Then they slowly raised that through the
years.
So, anyway, I finished the Army, finished college, went on to
practice law, and in the first year of practice when my father took all
the money and I did all the work, I put in 42 bucks--42 bucks. I made a
little over $1,600.
Then, in the most productive years of my life to that point, for 18
years of practicing law, I never put in over 816 bucks a year. Nobody
else did either. Not one person in this country put in any more in
those years as a self-employed person than 816 bucks a year.
That is where we are. And you are telling us that this is
sustainable? How absurd. But it is ``off the table.'' The biggest
gorilla in the jungle is now off the table.
So, then, finally I came here in 1979, and put 615 bucks into Social
Security that first year. Then the next year, 951. Then, you know.
There it is--in 1989. My total contribution was $2,980. So was it for
everybody else in America; period. So, if you total it all up, over a
lifetime it is about $55,000.
Now here is the slot machine handle. Here is what I will get, and so
will anybody else my age. This is my estimate of benefits. This is a
photocopy of the document directly from the Social Security
Administration. Thank Heaven they are sending this to people now. It is
going out automatically to people. Millions of copies are going out
thanks again to Senator Moynihan. We owe him a great deal.
We owe him a great deal because, do not forget, he was very involved
in the blue ribbon commission that met in the early 1980's and said to
us all: We can save Social Security with a deft blend of payroll taxes
and some other changes, and if we do--and we all voted on it--if we do,
it will save the Social Security System until the year 2063.
Do you remember that? I hope you all do. Because now we are told by
the trustees of the system that Social Security can only now be saved
until the year 2029. So from 1983 to 1996, we have compressed the drop
dead date from 2063 to 2029, and everybody knows it. Everybody knows
it.
So if I were to retire at age 65, I will receive $1,170 a month. But
if I wait until age 70, I will get $1,555 per month, with a life
expectancy of--well, it is cheerful news. My father lived to be 95, my
mother 94, my grandmother 100. I will be rolling and rolling over in
it, and it will not matter what my net worth or income is. Then also
add to it a COLA every year.
Does anybody within the range of my voice believe this is a
sustainable system? It is not. Senator Kerrey and I are trying to
restore long-term solvency to this system, because it will be broke in
the year 2029, and will begin to go broke in the year 2012 when we
start cashing in the bonds and Treasury securities.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen--and please do not lob anything--there
is no Social Security trust fund. There is no such fund. You know it. I
know it. All we have is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President and
the Congress set for us, which is this: That if there is any surplus,
any surplus at all in the Social Security funds, it must be invested in
securities of the United States, backed by the full faith and credit of
the U.S. Treasury. So when there are reserves, the Treasury purchases T
bills, savings bonds, whatever. Some of those are purchased by those of
us in this body. They are purchased by banks. By other Americans. The
interest on those securities is not paid out of some kitty called the
Social Security trust fund. It is paid out by the General Treasury,
ladies and gentlemen. We all know that. Everybody knows that. We do not
``steal'' from the Social Security trust fund and in profligate ways
just poof it on down the street. We do not do that. But we go back to
the town meeting and they will say, ``Now, that's what you did. You
stole from the Social Security trust fund and blew it. You never put it
back.'' I said, ``My friend, there was nothing there to blow.'' It is a
series of IOU's that would stack to the top of this Chamber.
It is all good stuff. It is good financial paper, but it is not--it
is not--some kind of separate fund. If it was a separate fund, it would
be, right now, over $220 billion. Do you think we would leave that
untouched if we could find our way into it? Of course not.
The thing about it is that those reserves could reach $2 trillion
before the year 2012, but then when we get to the year 2012, that is
it. That is it, because there will not be enough revenue coming in to
take care of the monthly payments going out--period, nothing.
This is a pay-as-you-go system. It has nothing to do with a rolling
trust fund or anything else. The people who are paying their Social
Security payroll tax in today, that tax is going right out this month
to senior citizens regardless of their net worth or their income.
Now, that is the way it is, and the sooner we get to dealing quite
honestly with what this system is, I think we might have some semblance
of ability to get out of it.
Then came the proposal to reduce the growth in Medicare below
catastrophic rates--not ``cut'' it, but to slow the growth in the way
that every objective analysis has shown that we must. The President was
suggesting slowing the rate of growth when he dealt with his very
controversial health care plan which was defeated. The President then
later talked about letting Medicare go up 7.6 percent or 7.8.
I admired that. I said that at the time. Republicans are trying to
let it to go up 6.4. The President might be at 7 now. We are not that
far apart. That gap could be closed very well. We could close that gap
because both the President and the Congress know that we must slow the
growth in Medicare. Because why? Who is telling us all this bizarre
business? The people telling us this bizarre business are the trustees
of the Social Security and Medicare Programs. Slowing the growth in the
way that every objective analysis has shown us that we must.
Are we going to get a severe political lesson from that one, an
example of what the Washington Post had called ``Medagoguing?''
President Clinton and too many others of us, Republicans and Democrats,
have decided to run for office this November on the assertion that we
are saving America from ``cuts'' in Medicare while at the same time
``behind the scenes'' every single one of us agrees somewhat on what
kind of target needs to be hit to bring Medicare within reasonable
bounds. We all know that. As a consequence, what have we accomplished?
Not much on the Medicare front. That spending continues to spiral
upwards unabated.
Get this one. A few weeks ago what were we told? A little
miscalculation there. Instead of a surplus of $4.2 billion that month
in Medicare, we found a $37 million deficit. That is the trustees
telling us this too. It was startling to them. So maybe Medicare will
not go broke in 2002; it will only go broke in 2001.
But do not forget this. If the Republicans get away with all these
terrible tricks and do everything that we have proposed to do to
balance the budget in 7 years, and do it, Medicare will not go broke in
2002; it will go broke in 2010. What a deal. What a deal that we have
``balanced the budget'' and Medicare will not go broke in 2002; it will
go broke in 2010. Everybody knows that. Everybody.
So as the spending continues to spiral upwards unabated, the only
real accomplishment of the exercise possibly will be to elect some new
legislators who have pledged on their highest
[[Page S3781]]
honor to stop any cruel efforts to ever deal with that silly problem
again. Oh no, we will not do that one again, because obviously too many
people got beat when they tried to do that.
Then I do have this other document here which is worth everyone's
attention. It is a little yellow booklet entitled, ``Status of the
Social Security and Medicare Programs.'' It comes to us from the Board
of Trustees of Social Security, and those persons are three of the
President's Cabinet, Robert Rubin, Robert Reich, Donna Shalala; and
Shirley Chater, Stanford Ross, and David Walker.
Then let me read this from page 11 in the section entitled ``Need For
Action.'' Remember, these are the trustees of the system, the stewards
of the system telling us this:
During the past 5 years, there has been a trend of
deterioration in the long-range conditions of the Social
Security and Medicare Programs and an acceleration in the
projected dates of exhaustion in the related trust funds.
I paraphrase what the words ``projected dates of exhaustion'' mean--
that is, going flat broke is what that means.
And further then:
To some extent, the increasingly adverse projections have
come from unforeseen events and from the absence of prompt
action in response to clear warnings that changes are
necessary. These adverse trends can be expected to continue
and indicate the possibility of a future retirement crisis.
We urge that concerted action be taken promptly to address
the critical public policy issues raised by the financing
projection for these programs.
To repeat the line I found most interesting: This situation arises
``from the absence of prompt action in response to clear warnings that
changes are necessary.''
In other words, we know fully that we must act, and yet we refuse,
out of political fear, to do so. That, to my mind, is well defined as
irresponsibility, or as akin to chickens, as I have patterned upon my
tie here. I wore this appropriately today. These are chickens that I
try to show to people between 18 and 40, so that they know that they
will be picking grit with the chickens when they are 65 and that they
must get in this game and figure out what is going to happen to them.
That is why I wear this beautifully patterned haberdashery.
I could go on, but I can see my colleagues rising and heaving at
their desks. My colleagues have heard me speak on this issue before.
Perhaps somewhat tiring is the message. But remember this. It will not
work to say Simpson is off the rail, or easy for him to say, he is not
running, because I have said these things back in time immemorial,
every time I ran. But I assure you I, too, am tiring of the inaction.
If we want to be spared the alarm bells that will be coming in this
area, all we need do is meet our responsibility to our citizenry and
cast the tough votes to correct these problems. I have heard that one,
too. Do not think I have not cast these politically correct votes, too,
as a chicken. I have done that. But we will not get there by enacting
tax cuts. That was something the President wanted, something we wanted.
I was ready to go for capital gains. I will still go over the cliff,
but we will not get there by doing that.
We will not get there by increasing the minimum wage. We will not get
there with line-item veto. We will not get there by getting rid of
fraud and abuse. That will not get you there. More of it. The only way
you get there is to deal with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,
Federal retirement--period. All other is true fiction.
And we will not get there by saying we are going to slavishly posture
to protect Social Security from the balanced budget amendment and thus
let it go bankrupt on its own. We will not get there by giving out more
money to employed seniors with no affluence test, and I voted for that
one, too. We will get there only by slowing the growth of spending to
the point where revenues can keep the pace, and that is it,
substantively. That is very difficult politically. That is, alone, why
it does not happen.
Finally, I just could not let this go by. I have a new missive from
the remarkable group, the National Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare. These people are something, they really are, not
quite as slick as the AARP, but nearly. Do not forget the AARP is
simply a group of 33 million Americans bound tightly together by a
common love of airline discounts and automobile discounts and pharmacy
discounts, and they are really a rugged and remarkable group. They are.
They live in poverty downtown here in a building they lease for $17
million a year--$17 million a year. They have about $345 million in T-
bills in the bank and rake in about $106 million a year from Prudential
Insurance Co., getting 3 percent of the premiums on the MediGap
policies.
And guess who helped kill off any reform and helped stall the
Government? Do not miss this one. You remember why we shut down the
Government? One of the reasons is because part B--a totally voluntary
program--premiums in Medicare were going to go up $7 a month. Some
said, ``We cannot have that.'' So the AARP rose in high indignation,
then helped kill that off, and, at the same time, they watched the
increase in the MediGap monthly insurance policies they placed with
Prudential go up 31 bucks a month--all while they killed off the
ability for us to say that those who have more should pay more for part
B premiums--like $7 a month.
You have a current situation in America about which every thoughtful
American must scratch his or her head. Part B premiums are paid, 25
percent by the beneficiary and 75 percent by the people working here in
the Senate kitchen. Those folks pay 75 percent of the premium for us,
or for anyone else, regardless of their net worth or their income. And
we cannot even change that.
So here is AARP, through Prudential raising their own premiums $31 a
month while they are killing off a program in America to raise it $7 a
month on something which is totally voluntary. You do not want anything
to do with a group like that. Yes, I know people stay in AARP because
you can get a room at Westin Hotel for $80 instead of $140--I know
those things--and the senior discounts here and there and at the
movies. I know those things. I do not want to detract. I am a member. I
am using some of those.
But here is this new one, just this little one from this remarkable
group, regarding the type of political pressure I am talking about.
This is the most recent mailing from one of our most intriguing senior
citizen organizations, the National Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare. It is labeled as ``The 1996 Benefit Cut Impact
Survey.'' Very interesting stuff.
Question 1: ``After promising never to touch Social Security, many
political leaders in Washington are discussing proposals that will
result in smaller Social Security COLA's, making it impossible for your
benefits to keep pace with the real inflation you experience.'' This is
best described--in the West, we would have a different term, a
different, perhaps, appellation for it--it is a lie right off the bat.
Because no one is talking about taking COLA's below the true size of
inflation--nobody, not a soul.
Next question, ``Should your congressional representatives pose any
measure that would result in lower Social Security COLA's?''
Oh, that one should not be too difficult to answer for the citizen
that receives it. It is a rather brazen appeal to the recipient's
financial self-interest without any accompanying discussion about the
country as a whole and it skillfully say the seeds for wrath to be
expressed subsequently at the ballot box. That is very important, that
you do that when these mailings go out.
Question 2: ``If such COLA legislation goes through, would you
support your national committee in an all-out campaign to repeal it?''
That is pretty easy to understand, I think, pretty easy. Another way
of saying it is: ``Will this committee be able to bilk you out of more
contributed bucks to our organization as compensation for raining
political threats down upon the bald or hirsute domes of those in
Washington and environs?''
Question 4: ``If a balanced budget amendment, one that did not
protect the Social Security trust funds, came to a vote in Congress
this session, would you urge your elected representatives in Congress
to oppose it?'' How nice. We have seen that campaign brought to the
floor of the Senate several times, the use of the Social Security ``hot
button'' as a means of derailing the balanced budget amendment.
[[Page S3782]]
And it worked. It was also marvelously done when we repealed
catastrophic health care. If we had done that 1 year ago, we would not
be in this box today. And the AARP, although they say they never did
have any official fingerprints on that, I mean, it looked like the
Abominable Snowman footprint when you got right down underneath it
all--much more than a fingerprint, a giant track, a gaping hole, a
crevasse in the ice. And there they were, then, and it worked, and it
continues to be a source of political agitation to this day and on into
the future.
So this--and I conclude my remarks--this mailing is but one example
of the cottage industries which have sprung up all over this country
which aim to drain the Treasury of everything they can get by whipping
credulous Americans and senior citizen into a frenzy and scaring
elected representatives half to death. It matters not that these
mailings are filled with sophistry and distortion and emotion and
obfuscation. What matters is that they have a political impact and
raise big bucks, and too many here are afraid to buck the tide which
they produce.
By the way, I should note that the final request on page 6 of this
missive is for additional bucks, for the poor, ragged committee, a
curious way to protect the meager finances of the poor senior citizens,
is it not? Asking them to give up $10 of their hard-earned Social
Security money for this committee's sake? And one effect of term
limits, in its most succinct form, is the one effect it would hopefully
have on organizations like this, who are dedicated, apparently, to the
bankruptcy of our country, is that it is very likely such groups would
vanish without a trace. And no one would miss them.
Then lacking any substantive basis for their position and lacking any
further clout stemming from political fear, what reason would still
persist for their existence? I can bet you that the national committee
here is not too excited about term limits legislation. They would find
it far more effective to frighten legislators, simply continue to do
it, to do their bidding. What a bunch. Martha and Max should be
ashamed, but I can tell you they are not.
So, I am very pleased to support my colleague, Senator Thompson, with
his initiative.
I, of course, have been forcing my own brand of term limitations this
year by retiring from Washington and going on to other work. But it is
extremely refreshing and like a splash of mountain spring water not to
have concerns about November mixed in with one's vote recommendations.
I can say to you, it is a rare tonic which I recommend in large doses
to the entirety of the House and the Senate, and I believe if we enact
this measure, we will have taken one significant step toward resolving
some of the largest, greatest and most serious challenges facing this
country.
We all know it, we like these jobs; we want to continue. None of
these critical things I describe will be done without a term limit.
None. After it kicks in, I can only say one-third of the U.S. Senate
will be voting right every time, and the Democrats or Republicans who
are leading this body at that time will be able to find those other 18
to get the 51 votes to do the Nation's business. I think that is a very
important thing to do, is to be about the Nation's business and not
just continue to be assailed and hammered flat by the groups who are so
skilled at peddling fear, but ever more skilled at raising bucks, as
they terrify the American senior citizens.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I think that I may be the first person
today to speak against this resolution, but let me say, first of all, I
am delighted to do so. It is, admittedly, a freebie. You can vote for
it in the absolute certainty that it is going nowhere, and you can send
out your newsletters and press releases and tell your constituents that
you did your best.
I have heard a lot of speakers this afternoon say, ``Well, this is
popular with the American people.'' Slavery was once popular also, but
I don't hear any of my colleagues arguing that slavery was a good idea.
Prohibition was also once popular. Do you know what we got out of
prohibition because it was popular? Organized crime, and that is all we
got out of prohibition. Organized crime is still ensconced as part of
our society because we voted for a constitutional amendment because it
was popular.
In my State of Arkansas in 1992 the voters approved term limits, by a
60-40 margin, for both State and Federal officers. As you know, the
Supreme Court, by a very narrow vote of 5 to 4, ruled that the people
of Arkansas did not have the right to limit the terms of Federal
officials which had been set by the Constitution. It is still in
effect.
Interestingly, while 60 percent of the voters of Arkansas were voting
by a 60-percent margin for term limits, they reelected me to a fourth
term by a margin of 60 percent. You can only conclude that it is all
those other guys who they are wanting to get rid of. I do not quarrel
with the popularity of this proposition with the American people. They
have a right to favor it. But I also want to say that one of the
biggest responsibilities Members of Congress have is to be an educator
as well as a legislator, and I have never passed up the opportunity at
a Rotary Club or a chamber of commerce banquet to express my
unalterable opposition to term limits. It is not meant to demean, it is
meant to give people a side that they never hear at the coffee shop and
why I think it is a bad idea, why Alexander Hamilton thought it was a
bad idea, and why the Founding Fathers dismissed it almost summarily.
People have a right to believe something is a good idea, but I have
an obligation, if I happen to disagree with that, to try my very best
to educate them, at least to an alternative view.
This whole idea is based on the assumption that every man and woman
who seeks public office does so, not to serve the public good, not to
promote a national agenda, which is good for our people, but to feather
his own nest, to pursue a personal agenda. ``You just cannot trust
those people in the U.S. Senate for more than 12 years, because you
give them 13 years and they lose all of their integrity, all of their
interest in the national good.''
Unhappily, occasionally somebody around here proves that to be true.
Somebody proves himself to be dishonest or unethical or just a lousy
Member of Congress. But I tell you, Mr. President, the vast majority of
the 535 Members of Congress are honest, they are ethical, they are hard
working and they are fighting for what they believe is in our national
interest.
Ethics has become a very big issue around here. Most secretaries and
office managers keep the Ethics Committee on autodial. So intent are
they in complying with arcane rules that a lot of people around here do
not understand, and the ethics manual gets thicker and thicker each
year.
In 1960, 70 percent of the people in this country said they had quite
a bit of confidence in Congress. In 1960, while 70 percent of the
people were saying they had quite a bit of confidence in Congress,
Members of Congress could take a $100,000 contribution in $100 bills
and did not have to report it to anybody.
Members of Congress could make a speech and take $5,000 in honoraria
and did not have to report it to anybody. They could practice law. They
could take the people who came into their offices soliciting their
favors, lobbyists and could refer them to their law firms back home and
then share in the profits of that law firm that fall. And 70 percent of
the people in this country thought things in Washington were just
hunky-dory, because they did not know it.
Today, the ethics manual grows thicker and thicker, to the point that
people are afraid to take an insulated coffee mug from the Rotary Club,
and you dare not risk allowing anybody to buy you a dinner for fear
that it might exceed $50, if you are a Senator, or any amount if you
are a House Member.
Every Member must file an ethics report of what stock he owns, the
value of it, where his income came from last year. It is all there, and
the press microscopically examines it every year, and it is
appropriate. That is the way it ought to be.
So today, you have to report every significant contribution made to
your campaign and lay bare your own personal net worth. And you cannot
receive honoraria for any speeches that you give. And today, 1996, 23
percent of
[[Page S3783]]
the people of this country have quite a bit of confidence in Congress.
Can you imagine the people in this Chamber voting aye on this
resolution, and essentially saying, ``You're right.'' I will be a good,
decent, ethical, honest Senator for 12 years. But if you elect me to a
third term, look out, I'm going to be uncontrollable. If you allow me 6
more years, don't count on anything.''
That is what we are saying here. I cannot be trusted with more than
12 years in this body. What we are engaged in here is the height of
pandering. This is not a serious debate. If it were, why would the
manager of the resolution offer immediately seven amendments which are
identical to the resolution to make sure that no Senator can offer an
amendment to improve the resolution?
That is right. We are going to talk about this resolution until 2:15
tomorrow afternoon. We are going to have a cloture vote, and cloture is
going to fail miserably. Everybody here knows it is going to fail
miserably. Everybody knows this is a freebie.
Do you know something else? Of the 45 Senators that voted for Senator
Ashcroft's resolution in support of term limits last year, 25 of them
have been here longer than two terms, which is what this resolution
would deal with. Do you know why else they filled the tree? To keep
anybody from offering an amendment to it, because they knew that
Senator Leahy or I would offer an amendment to make the term-limits
resolution apply to terms already served.
They did not want any of that retroactive stuff. You have been here
five terms, and you are hot for term limits? Of course you do not want
it to be retroactive so you cannot even run again.
I do not mean this personally because I admire him and I like him and
I consider him my friend. The senior Senator from South Carolina will
be eligible for four more terms if this resolution were to pass and it
took 7 years for the people of this country to adopt it--four more. He
would be 117. I would be eligible for three more terms.
Oh, it has all been carefully crafted to take care of those who have.
We have a saying in Arkansas ``them what has, gets.'' Oh, it is very
popular. You know, when you are standing before an audience and there
is a question: ``Senator, how do you feel about an amendment to the
Constitution to balance the budget?''
``I'm for that.''
``How do you feel about flag burning?''
``You bet. Count me in.''
``Well, how about term limits?''
``You bet. I'm for term limits.''
It is so easy to agree with what you know is popular among the group
you happen to be speaking to.
I saw a story the other day in the Hill newspaper discussing how the
Republicans requested that term limit supporters not punish the junior
Senator from Kentucky because he is adamantly opposed to this
resolution. I guess only the Democrat opponents of term limits are
worthy of criticism.
You think about even considering punishing somebody for the courage
of their convictions. The proponents of term limits say that is the
reason they want it, so people will be courageous and stand up for what
they believe.
Mr. President, do you know what a courageous vote is? It is an
unpopular vote. If it were not unpopular, it would not be courageous.
So the people say, ``If we limit them to 12 years, they will be
courageous knowing they cannot run again. If we won't let them run
again after 12 years, they are going to be statesmen. They will say
what they really believe. And they are going to say courageous things.
They are going to be men of principle.''
Here is what Alexander Hamilton said about that in Federalist paper
No. 72:
There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the
discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the
advantage of the station with which it was connected must be
relinquished at a determinant period, than when they were
permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a
continuation of them.
That is right. Let them stand for reelection on the merits of their
past 6 years' performance. Do not pass some kind of undemocratic
nonsense saying the people do not have enough sense to know who they
want to vote for.
I daresay, my colleague, Senator Pryor, would probably have run
without opposition this time if he chose to run again. But if he had an
opponent, I can tell you he would have won overwhelmingly. Do you know
why? Because he has been a man of conviction, he has been a man of
courage, he has not jumped under his desk every time the National Rifle
Association issued a press release. He has talked sense to his people.
And they love him for it. And Alexander Hamilton says that is what
Members of Congress are supposed to do. Why take away that right of the
people to elect whomever they choose?
What was the origin of term limits? Let me tell you, I have so many
friends on the other side, I do not like to describe them in terms of
partisanship a lot of times--but I think organizations, many times
ultraconservative organizations, have made up their minds that the
Democrats were never, never going to lose control of Congress if we did
not have term limits. So it became fashionable.
Congress was losing credibility and respect and prestige with the
people all along. As I said, down to 23 percent. So they said, ``We
believe we can sell this constitutional amendment to limit people to 12
years in the Senate and 6 or 12 years in the House.'' So what happened?
The American people said, we will decide for ourselves. The two
Senators--one from Tennessee and one from Arizona--are sitting here and
are the beneficiaries of the American people saying, ``We're tired of
the Democrats. We're going to give the Republicans a chance.'' That is
the reason those Senators were elected in 1994. That is what is called
term limits, allowing the people to vote. They just did it. I
personally hope the American people are not happy with their decision,
but in any event that is their call, not mine.
Mr. President, I think about some of the greatest Senators this body
has ever had, who would not even be an asterisk in the history books if
they had been limited to 12 years. When I came to the U.S. Senate, Abe
Ribicoff, Jack Javits, Cliff Case, Jim Pearson, Scoop Jackson, Ed
Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, on and on the list goes of truly great
Senators, Republican and Democrat, that would be a footnote in the
history books if this thing had been on the books.
Finally, let me just close by expressing my utter contempt for trying
to solve every single problem from whether drinking water ought to be
on the Senator's desk, to term limits, by an amendment to the
Constitution. There are a few people in this body who apparently feel
the Constitution is just a rough draft for them to finish up. I am one
of those people who believe that Hamilton, Adams, Ben Franklin, James
Madison, and the other Framers was the greatest assemblage of minds
ever under one roof in the history of the world, who produced the
document second only in its powerfulness to the Holy Bible.
I do not vote often for constitutional amendments. I am not saying I
never would. All this nonsense that comes through this place--``Let's
amend the Constitution,'' think about it. Over 17,000 efforts to amend
the Constitution since 1789--17,000, count them. Taking the Bill of
Rights out, the first 10 amendments which were adopted almost as part
of the Constitution, and the American people, out of those 17,000
efforts, have chosen to amend the Constitution 18 times. You take
prohibition which was ratified in the late 1920's, and the repeal of
prohibition, take those two out, and the people of this country have
tinkered with the Constitution 16 times out of 17,000 to 18,000
resolutions offered since 1789. There have been 83 amendments
introduced in this Congress, and 2,000 since I came to the Senate. How
can we conclude that Members of the Congress do not think the
Constitution is just a rough draft, when they treat it with such
contempt?
As I said a moment ago, who likes flag burning? I do not. But it is
presented in political terms. It is not presented the way things were
presented in Philadelphia 206 years ago. It is always politics.
Let me digress just a moment to say I have been reading a book by
James Fallows called ``Breaking the News: How the Media is Undermining
American Democracy,'' and he makes this point, that if you watch ``Face
the Nation,'' ``Meet the Press,'' and David
[[Page S3784]]
Brinkley on Sunday morning, you hear how well Medicare or Medicaid is
working. Do you hear anything about the environment and how it is
working and the new regulations coming out of EPA? No, those are policy
decisions. For a writer to write about a policy, that writer has to go
to the stacks and do some work, find out the history of them. Why do we
have Medicaid? Because we do not want elderly people laying in the
streets, we do not want children without health care--a policy decision
that was debated a very long time here before we adopted Medicaid
policy. Why do we have school lunches? So children are not hungry. Why
do we have food stamps? So nobody is hungry. We did not do that willy-
nilly. That was debated in the Senate. We adopted it as a policy, as a
great nation who believes in trying to help people.
So when you hear all the gurus on the Sunday morning talk shows:
``What do you think about block grants? Do you think that will help
Bill Clinton or hurt him? Do you think that will help Bob Dole or hurt
him?'' Not a question of whether the States can do a better job
administering it. Will they comply with the policy we made that we do
not want children to go without health care, we do not want the elderly
to be lying on the streets, we want them taken care of in nursing
homes? No, you do not hear that. It is the politics of this issue. So
it is with this.
What is the politics of it? Well, you do not have to be brilliant to
know what the politics of this is. If you want to go home and tell the
townhall meeting and the chamber of commerce and Rotary Club, if you
want them to stand up and clap, you vote ``aye.'' If you took your oath
when you came here to perfect and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all kinds of assaults on it, vote ``no.''
I promise you, when the people of this country voted the way they did
in 1994, they were not saying they wanted to turn their back on the
environment. They were saying they did want the budget balanced, but
they did not say they wanted to cut educational funds, because the one
thing people in this country would still vote taxes for is for the
education of their children. They did not say they wanted Medicare
whacked, though everybody knows Medicare is going to have to be
reformed. Be honest about it and talk sense about it.
Mr. President, this will be the last time we will address term limits
for some time to come and get it off the agenda. Everybody knows it is
going nowhere, but everybody can go home and say they did their best.
But they did not. They did their worst. I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am sorry that my friend from Arkansas
thinks that this is such a partisan debate. This is my second day in
the midst of this debate, and until a few minutes ago I had not known
it was.
If my colleague had been following closely, he would have heard a
discussion by several Members of this body, some of whom are new to the
body, some of whom have been here for a while, who are greatly
concerned about the future of their country and are struggling for
means and methods to do something about it. He would have heard that
the bipartisan commission, which my friend from Arkansas is a member
of, reported that in 2030 to bring the deficit down to its currents
level, either all Federal taxes would have to be increased by 85
percent or all Federal spending programs would have to be cut in half.
That by 2012, mandatory spending and interest and entitlements will
exceed all Federal revenues, leaving no money for the Federal
Government to spend on programs like education, law enforcement,
research and development, national defense, health research and all the
other programs he mentioned. By 2030, entitlement spending alone is
expected to exceed all Federal revenue.
That is what this debate is about. I find it unfortunate that certain
Members who choose this particular occasion to exhibit courage to stand
against the overwhelming will of the people will not address the true
nature of this debate and what is happening to this country. It is
equated with slavery. Term limits, I heard just a few minutes ago on
this floor, being equated with slavery. That is how much some Members
want to cling to their profession, as professional politicians.
I heard that no amendment, no amendment ever is a good idea. I assume
that would include the 13th amendment which abolished slavery. I hope
we would have all been for that. I wish the strong stands on principle
had resulted over the past few decades and some hope for the next
generation, instead of bankruptcy and total loss by the American people
in the confidence of the legislative branch of Government, which is
exactly what we have today. It may not go anywhere because everybody is
hunkered down in their offices, feeling confident that their
colleagues, when it comes right down to it, will not vote for term
limits.
Yes, they can stand in the face of the will of 75 percent of the
American people, because at a time when we rush to get the American
people's opinion on everything and anything that comes across the
horizon, in this particular case, we will stand firm against it as a
matter of principle. Yes, we can be confident when it comes right down
to it. We may not have the votes, because there is only one thing worse
than risking the wrath of the American people on term limits. It is
just one issue. That thing is actually putting your career in
jeopardy. That is what it is. That is not what our Founding Fathers
envisioned. We can quote Alexander Hamilton, but Alexander Hamilton,
that aristocrat, that Federalist, wanted lifetime tenure for Senators.
So I can see why some of my colleagues might want to line up with him.
This is not based on the assumption that Members of Congress and
Members of the Senate are only interested in feathering their own
nests. This is not a get-even strategy, and not something that is mean
spirited to get at people. We all have Members whom we admire. As I
said earlier, I sat in the lobby and watched, as a boy, what went on in
this body. I had the opportunity to serve with Senator Sam Ervin of
North Carolina and Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee as I was counsel
on the Watergate committee many years ago. I did not go through what it
took to get here to become a member of a body that I had no respect
for. What I am trying to do is to try to help get that body back to the
level of esteem with the American people that the American people once
had for that body.
When my colleague points out that, once upon a time, we had no ethics
rules, we could take money and do lectures and all these things; yet,
70 percent of the people approved of Congress. Now we have all these
ethics rules and nobody approves of Congress. To me, that demonstrates
that it is not matters of ethics rules that are concerning the American
people. The low esteem they have for us has to do with other things.
Those other things have to do with the fact that just like Senator
Simpson said, we are bankrupting the Nation, Mr. President. We are
bankrupting the Nation, and just because we get used to hearing it
makes it no less true.
Yet, we hear on and on and on again about these favorite programs
that we cannot touch. No, I agree; this is the reason for the abysmal
decline of confidence of the American people, barely above, according
to some surveys, 12 percent approval--only law firms had lower at 11
percent approval--by the American people. We want to stand up and be
proud of these last few decades and all the people who have served,
proud of what we have done as an institution, and all the people who
would not have been able to serve if we had not had the system that we
have now.
What about those 250 million people who have no hope of serving under
the system that we have now? To my colleague, it may be inconsistent
for his State to pass term limits and reelect him. To me, it is not. We
have a closed system, whereby, regardless of the disgust the American
people have with the Congress of the United States, or the distrust
they have, or the feeling of revulsion, even, according to some of
these surveys, we get reelected at a 90 percent rate. Does that have to
do with some schizophrenia in the American people, or does it have to
do with the fact that the incumbents get all the money? Most people
with good judgment do not even try to break into a system like that. He
mentioned my colleague from Arizona and myself as being a part of the
system. I believe those were both open seats. If those seats had not
been open and we knew we were going to have to go against a
[[Page S3785]]
well-entrenched incumbent, the decision might have been different
because the odds are not good.
In the 1950's, a vote was taken on who the best five Senators in
history were. Five Members were voted the best, and their portraits
adorn the reception room of the Senate. These are Webster, Calhoun,
Clay, La Follette, and Taft. Only one of these great Senators served
more than two full terms--Senator La Follette.
So let us not worry too much about the proposition that it takes 20
years in order to make an impact in this body. We know different. We
know different. We heard yesterday from the Senator from Vermont and
today from the Senator from Arkansas. The basic criticism, as I
understand it, of this constitutional amendment--which they vigorously
oppose--is that it does not go far enough. They would be for
retroactivity; that this is not real term limits. They want real term
limits, and they are concerned they are not going to get a vote on
that. The reason we filled up the tree, of course, was the fact that
the Senator from Arkansas and his colleagues wanted to add amendments
totally unrelated to term limits so we would never get a true vote on
term limits. Everybody knows that.
Mr. President, I just urge, as this debate goes on, hopefully, we can
shed a little more light on the subject than heat. Hopefully, we can
keep it from being a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue.
Those young kids coming up today, and those yet to be born, are going
to be Democrats and Republicans. It does not matter what party we are a
member of or what party they are going to be members of. They are going
to bear the consequences of the system we have now. We do not have the
political will to do the things that we know we have to do to save this
Nation from bankruptcy. We do not have the political will because, as
Senator Simpson said, it is fear. It is stark fear of having to do
something else for a living. We are willing to put our own professional
careers ahead of the welfare of the next generation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to continue our discussion of
Senate Resolution 21, a constitutional amendment providing for a limit
of six terms in the House and two in the Senate. As a freshman Senator
who came directly from the private practice of medicine, I believe
strongly that Washington would not be out of touch with average
Americans if Members of Congress were not permitted to make a career
out of serving in Congress, and instead came to Washington to serve
only for a time, and then return to live under the laws they passed.
More than 200 years ago, the Founders of this great Nation fought and
won a war that replaced a tyrannical, permanent government in London
with a democratic Republic where the people, not an aristocracy, rule.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 of his concern about the influence
special interests--he called them factions would have if Members of
Congress were permitted to remain in office for too long. He argued
that without the regular rotation of citizens into and out of elected
office, those elected would put the interests of the well-connected
ahead of the interests of the country.
Mr. President, Madison was right. Unfortunately, the Constitutional
Convention in 1787 did not adopt Madison's approach. Why? Not because
the Convention attendees believed in political careerism--they had just
fought a war against a permanent government back in England. They did
not include term limits on Congress because they felt it was
unnecessary. Who would want to stay in Congress for year after year,
traveling back and forth on horseback to this city, which was literally
in the middle of a swamp, without a staff, without air conditioning,
without an office, for a tiny salary, with no pension? Very few, Mr.
President. And for more than 150 years, the Founders were right.
Citizens would often come to Congress, serve a single term, and then
leave voluntarily. Others would leave after serving only two or three
terms, either voluntarily or after having been defeated at the ballot
box. The era of career politics is a relatively new one in our Nation's
history.
Our Founding Fathers believed in a citizen legislature. They
believed, as I do, that for the Congress to accurately reflect the will
of the people, rather than the factions Madison feared, it must have
the frequent and regular rotation of its Members into and out of
private life.
Yet today, Mr. President, we have drifted from that principle. No
longer do citizens from every walk of life come to Washington to lend
their expertise to the Nation, then return home to live and work under
the laws they passed. Over the last 40 years, we have seen the ideal of
the citizen legislator displaced by the career politician--and the
American people are not happy about it.
Mr. President, since the end of World War II, the Federal Government
has swollen to a point where it now consumes more than $1.6 trillion
every single year. We have incurred a total debt of nearly $5 trillion,
a debt that we will shamefully pass on to our children and
grandchildren, a debt that threatens the ability of every child born
today to achieve the American dream.
In fact, by the year 2012--16 years from now--our entitlement
programs Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, retirement, and Social Security
plus interest, will be greater than all Federal receipts, leaving no
funds for spending on other priorities such as our Nation's defense,
roads and bridges, education, national parks, or the environment. And
worse yet, last year's debate over the Balanced Budget Act of 1995
showed that reelection politics will continue to thwart any serious
debate regarding how to solve the entitlement situation. Unfortunately,
demagoguery and scare tactics rendered true reform of unbridled
entitlement spending impossible.
When politicians have careers to protect, there will be politics to
play. Washington is a 2-year town, focused on the next election--short-
term thinking. It should be a 20-year town, focused on long-term
thinking and on the true problems facing America. Two weeks ago, one of
my constituents told me that he thinks America lacks statesmen. He
said, ``Senator Frist, what we really want are statesmen. People who
will put the interest of the country ahead of party and politics and
self-interest. People who will make the tough calls.'' Mr. President,
he's right. I think a vast majority of Americans would like to see so
much more of that in Washington, and term limits is the way to
accomplish it.
Mr. President, we must ask ourselves how we've ended up in this
position. And more importantly, what's the solution?
The problem lies not with the individual men and women who are
elected to Congress, but with a system of perpetual incumbency that has
become so entrenched that it shields the Governors from the governed,
and creates a culture that separates Washington from the rest of
America. The longer Members serve in Congress the more removed they
become from the rich blend of experience of American life. More
importantly, career legislators become ever more risk averse, avoiding
tough but necessary decisions because of consideration for political
constituencies needed for reelection. A true citizen legislature would
suffer from neither of these problems.
Still, the American people know that Members of Congress have a tough
time with the issue of term limits. It is, after all, our own jobs that
are at stake. That's why, beginning in Colorado in 1990, the American
people took matters into their own hands and began voting, at the State
level, to enact term limits on their Federal delegations. Twenty-two
States followed, Mr. President. From Alaska to California to Florida to
Massachusetts, and several States in between, more than 25,000,000
people voted for term limits.
Mr. President, I think the American people have made their point.
Unfortunately, in May of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated
the term limits laws of 23 States and made it clear that the only
remaining course to impose term limits is to enact a constitutional
amendment.
So here we are. And the question is what we will do. Will we swallow
self-interest and career protectionism and do the will of the people?
Or will we stonewall the will of the people and tell them we know
better here in Washington?
[[Page S3786]]
There are some who argue that the American people can already decide
when they want new representation by simply voting us out of office at
the next election. That claim, Mr. President, assumes that incumbents
and challengers compete on a relatively level playing field. They
don't. Look at the 1994 elections. In 1994, a year of radical political
change in America, 92 percent of all Members of the Senate and 90
percent of the House Members who sought reelection were returned to
office. The power of incumbency is vast.
Mr. President, I was the only Member of this body elected in 1994 to
have defeated a full-term incumbent Senator. Now, some have said that
my election proves it's possible to defeat an incumbent, and they're
right. But I believe, as do the American people, that it should be more
than merely possible for ordinary citizens to be elected to Congress.
What of the ordinary citizens who never even come forward to challenge
incumbents because of extraordinary odds against them? Surely the
current system, which gives so much power to incumbents, discourages
some of our finest citizens from ever running in the first place,
clearly depriving the electorate of the widest possible choice of
candidates. Every Member of each body should know that there is a date-
certain when they will return home to make room for another citizen to
serve in Congress. That is not a radical idea; it's an idea that is
embraced by over 80 percent of the American people.
And to those who argue that the American public is served well by
legislators who have years of experience in Congress, I say that the
Federal Government should not be so large and complicated that only a
professional class of politicians can possibly understand or oversee
it. We should restructure, streamline and downsize the Federal
Government so that Americans from all walks of life can serve in
Congress without having to become professional politicians to master
its inner workings.
President Andrew Jackson who occupied the seat I hold in the Senate
said it well, nearly 170 years ago: ``I can not but believe that more
is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally to
be gained by their experience.'' Later Presidents agreed. A former
Member of this body from Missouri by the name of Harry Truman said in a
way that only Harry Truman could, that term limits would ``cure both
senility and seniority, both terrible legislative diseases.''
Mr. President, I do not believe the Constitution should be amended
any time there is another way of reaching the same legislative goal.
That's why the first bill I introduced in this body was the Electoral
Rights Enforcement Act of 1995, a statute that would have given the
States and the people additional authority to enact limits on the terms
of their delegations in Congress. I also believe, as Justice Thomas
argued in his dissenting opinion in U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton,
that the States already have the right to enact term limits under the
10th amendment to the Constitution, which states that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Nevertheless, Mr. President, the Supreme Court of the United States
has ruled that the only way to implement the American people's demand
for term limits on Members of Congress is through a constitutional
amendment. If Tuesday's vote is unsuccessful, I intend to support the
grass roots term limits movement that grows ever stronger outside the
beltway. This movement will not be quelled with the Senate's failure to
enact a constitutional amendment this week. In fact, this vote may well
fuel an even stronger groundswell in favor of a term limits
constitutional amendment.
For those who oppose the reforms which I consider to be of seminal
importance, a term limits constitutional amendment and a balanced
budget constitutional amendment, they should take note of article V of
the Constitution, which would allow the calling of a Constitutional
Convention upon a vote of two-thirds of the States. That is only 34
States, Mr. President, and 23 States have already voted in favor of
term limits. Term limits activists approach their cause seriously and
tenaciously, and I support their efforts to enact a term limits
constitutional amendment in whatever way is possible. I look forward to
Tuesday's vote, and I hope that each Member of this body will consider
his or her vote carefully, with the knowledge that a vote against this
measure is a vote against the will of the people.
I thank the chair and yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
____________________