[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.

                          ____________________