[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3864-S3878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will now report Senate Joint 
Resolution 21.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 21) proposing a 
     constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 3:45 is equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, who controls the time? I would like to 
speak in favor of the matter before the Senate. My understanding is the 
Senator from Tennessee or the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is divided between the Senate 
majority leader and the Senate minority leader or their designees.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I inquire of the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee if I might have 5 minutes within which to speak in favor 
of the pending matter.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I intend to vote in favor of the 
constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms Members of 
Congress can serve.
  I voted for a similar sense-of-the-Senate amendment on October 17, 
1995, and despite the clarity of my position and the documented record 
thereof in the Senate, the official records of my votes are continually 
distorted by my detractors. But that is nothing new in the life of a 
Senator. I wish to say exactly what I believe on this issue.
  I think the public is entitled to a national referendum on this 
issue, and the procedures outlined by the Constitution of the United 
States as to how the Nation addresses such an issue are very clear. It 
is not the duty nor the power of the Congress to enact this. It has to 
be done by the requisite number of State legislatures, and I am highly 
in favor of that process beginning at the earliest possible date.
  In my view, however, we already have term limits, and should this 
debate unfold in my State and across America, I will take an active 
role in it, and I will address my concerns about the adoption of such 
an amendment.
  I feel the current constitutional procedures for the election of U.S. 
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are themselves 
adequate protection that could be afforded by any constitutional 
amendment. It gives the right of the electorate of the States to make 
their own decision, as they think best for their State at that point in 
time, as it relates to their Senators and Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  Finally, I am concerned about if we were to adopt for the Nation such 
a procedure that we would be shifting too much power to the executive 
branch and also, too, I say candidly, to those individuals who have 
spent much time here in the U.S. Senate as very capable, very 
knowledgeable, well trained, dedicated and committed staff persons. If 
they were to stay here for periods much longer than their respective 
committee chairmen, for example, or Senators themselves, it seems to me 
that, too, adds to the imbalance of power.
  Then it comes to the question of the seniority procedures and 
tradition in the U.S. Senate. Seniority is a very important part of the 
rules and traditions

[[Page S3865]]

followed by both sides of the aisle, particularly as it relates to the 
election of committee chairmen or ranking members. That system was 
adopted because earlier procedures by the Senate were found to lend 
themselves to what I call pleasing politics. In other words, an 
individual would run for chairmanship of a committee and promise and 
promise to all the members of the committee that whatever they brought 
up, he or she would vote for.
  Fortunately, in the period I have been privileged to serve in the 
U.S. Senate on behalf of Virginia, we have had very strong and resolute 
chairmen in the several committees on which I have served. I mention 
only the Senate Armed Services Committee. Richard Russell, John 
Stennis, John Tower, Barry Goldwater and now Strom Thurmond, Scoop 
Jackson for a period and Sam Nunn. What finer men have ever served in 
the U.S. Senate. But they had to make tough decisions, often inimical 
and in opposition to their own colleagues of their own party. But they 
could do so knowing full well that the traditions of how one becomes 
eventually a chairman could withstand what I call the politics of 
trying to please everyone.
  If a chairman has to please everyone, in my mind it is very doubtful 
that you will have the strong leadership that is needed in the office 
of chairman and in the ranking member of our committees.
  So I put that out as an open question, and I hope we might address it 
in the context of this amendment.
  Madam President, I thank the distinguished floor leaders for the 
time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes in the absence 
of anyone else, and then 5 minutes to the Senator from California and 5 
minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Madam President, I think I can speak without anyone saying, ``He is 
trying to help himself,'' because I am going to be retiring at the end 
of this year.
  Government is complicated. No one here would go to the yellow pages 
of their phone book when they had plumbing difficulties and get a 
plumber and he advertises, ``I have no experience with plumbing, call'' 
whatever the number is. If that is true with something as relatively 
simple as plumbing, it is infinitely more true of the decisions that we 
have to make in this body.

  Bennett Johnston, for example, who is retiring, has huge knowledge in 
the scientific area that I think is unequaled in this body. Meaning no 
disrespect to whomever may succeed him, that person is not going to 
have that kind of knowledge.
  Senator Byrd brings a wealth of knowledge here from that experience. 
On the other side of the aisle, a former colleague of yours and mine, 
Madam President, Henry Hyde--I differ with Congressman Henry Hyde on a 
lot of things, but he is a class act. He brings a wealth of experience, 
and he has improved the end product of the laws of our country because 
of what he has contributed. To cut off a Henry Hyde or a Bennett 
Johnston or a Robert Byrd arbitrarily and take that decision away from 
the people of the Nation and of their respective States and districts, 
I think, is wrong. This is a constitutional amendment that should be 
defeated.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President. I think the remarks 
of the Senator from Illinois are very important.
  I want to put on the table my position on term limits which is, I 
support them if they are applied retroactively to all of us, to sitting 
officeholders. I had planned to support an amendment which Senator 
Leahy had planned to offer to make these term limits apply 
retroactively. Unfortunately, through a series of parliamentary 
maneuvers known as ``filling the amendment tree,'' the Republican 
leadership has made it impossible for us to amend this resolution. It 
is either up or down. So here we are unable to make these term limits 
apply to us.
  Advocates of this proposal assert that in its present form, it limits 
Senators to two terms. That is simply untrue. Without retroactivity, 
Senators in this Chamber--every one of us--can serve an additional two 
terms if this amendment passes.
  That is very convenient for Members here, but it really, to me, does 
not get at the issue of term limits.
  Let me cite two specific examples. Under this proposal, the majority 
leader would be limited to seven terms, or 42 years, in the U.S. 
Senate. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee will 
be limited to nine terms, or 54 years, in the U.S. Senate.
  I do not think that most supporters of term limits will be satisfied 
with so-called limits that allow politicians to stay in office for more 
than half a century.
  One Senator now serving in this body was serving here before another 
sitting Senator was 2 years old. It is incredible that the Members who 
would be serving over 50 years or 42 years are going to vote for this 
term-limit proposal.
  So I think the situation undermines the credibility of the Senate. We 
cannot offer amendments, we cannot make it apply to us, and I do not 
think we should be congratulating ourselves for supporting term limits 
when it is obvious that the limits proposed are little more than what I 
consider to be a sham for every Member serving in this Chamber. It is 
more of ``do as I say not as I do,'' and I think the public is very 
tired of that.
  So let us offer our retroactivity amendment and not exempt ourselves 
from this law. Perhaps the majority leader will allow us that chance if 
we vote down cloture. Let me be clear. At that time, if we vote down 
cloture and the majority leader allows us a vote on retroactivity, I 
will support cloture. I think it is very important that we be allowed 
to make sure that this amendment that so many are congratulating 
themselves on applies to each and every one of us.
  I thank the Chair very much. I believe Senator Bradley now has 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the cloture 
motion. I oppose term limits at this time. I think the answer to the 
problems of democracy is not less democracy, but is more democracy. Why 
should we say to people in this country who want a particular Senator 
or Congressman to return to office that they arbitrarily cannot return 
them to office?
  I also regret the parliamentary circumstance here, the constitutional 
amendment on term limits. Many of us believe that the problems of 
democracy have deeper root causes than Senators and Congressmen staying 
in office more than 12 years and that, indeed, money is at the root of 
the problem in our democracy.
  I had hoped to be able to offer a constitutional amendment as an 
amendment here in these proceedings that would allow the Congress and 
the States to limit what an individual may spend on his or her 
campaign. In my view, it is money that is creating a much greater 
problem for our democracy than somebody staying in office for 13 years.
  I think fundamental campaign finance reform is what we need. I think 
it has to be radical. I think money and politics is a little bit like 
ants in your kitchen--you either have to get them all out, block all 
the holes, or some of them are going to find a way in.
  A fundamental campaign finance reform proposal would be limits in 
primaries and would be also, I think, financing the election in the 
general election, dividing it equally among Republican, Democrat, and 
qualified independents, and it would mean a constitutional amendment. 
That would allow the Congress and States to limit what an individual 
spends on his or her own campaign. Everybody knows that a wealthy 
person has a microphone and everybody else has a megaphone here. The 
ability to raise money is often the prerequisite for deciding to run 
for Congress.
  When everybody goes in to visit their campaign committee, whether it 
is Republican or Democrat, the first question that is asked them is 
not, ``Gee, have you been a good citizen? Do you have a good record? Do 
you have ideas on how to make the country better? Are you willing to 
put yourself on the

[[Page S3866]]

line to do that? Are you willing to stand up for your convictions?'' It 
is, ``Can you raise $1 million?'' Better yet, ``Do you have $1 million 
to spend on your campaign?''

  Imagine a world in which there are term limits, but without strong 
campaign finance laws. How is democracy going to be improved? You will 
have the Senators and Congressmen coming from the same cast, raising 
money from the same sources, in some cases financing their own 
campaigns themselves, and will simply have a more active turnover of 
the same problem that we have now. It will not solve the problem--money 
in politics--which is the root cause of a lot of our problems. It will 
simply bring more people who are dependent on a special interest who 
have to finance their own campaigns themselves.
  On the other hand, imagine a campaign or situation where you had 
strong finance laws but no term limits. Imagine general elections where 
Republicans and Democrats divided the money in a fund and they each had 
equal amounts of money, and the money could only come from people in 
their own State, and that is all the money that they had to spend. You 
would then have the possibility of a battle of ideas. There is no 
possibility of a battle of ideas where money dominates the process as 
much as it does today. Even if term limits passes but we do not address 
the issue of money in politics, we are not going to have as vibrant a 
democracy as we otherwise could have. There are no two ways about that.
  I rise today simply to make this point because I had hoped, as I said 
earlier, to offer an amendment, a constitutional amendment, that would 
allow the Congress and the States to limit what an individual can spend 
on his or her own campaign as a part of an overall campaign finance 
proposal. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I regret that I cannot do 
that because of the parliamentary circumstance. I hope that I will 
before the end of this Congress. I think it is absolutely essential. 
Anything that fails to address the issue of money in politics and 
claims to be the answer to the problems of democracy is false 
advertising. I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. I thank him for his effort to bring 
this issue to the floor. It is an issue certainly that all of us who 
were elected in 1994 had a great interest in because that is what 
people were talking about. Frankly, had it not been for the Senator 
from Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri and the leader, we would 
not be here talking about it.

  I rise in strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 21 as a cosponsor 
of the bill and a long-time advocate of responding to the voice of 
voters and the voice of the people. I am pleased that the Senate will 
finally go on record on this important issue.
  Obviously, there are different points of view about it. We have heard 
a number of things just in the last few minutes. Let me comment on some 
of them.
  One of them is the idea of amending. That certainly, if I ever heard 
a political response, is one. The Senator from California would not 
vote for this under any circumstances. So the idea that it cannot be 
amended to be retroactive is simply an obstruction to what we are 
trying to do.
  Limiting dollars. We have talked about that a lot. I think it is a 
great idea. The only trouble is it does not work. How are you going to 
do that? Reporting is the best issue. Talk about limiting dollars that 
can be spent by candidates, we are looking this year at the AFL-CIO 
spending $35 million, which would not count because they are not in the 
campaign.
  You have heard a little bit about the idea of people having the 
chance to make their own choice. It makes some sense. They are going to 
have a chance to make a choice. This is a constitutional amendment. The 
Congress does not pass this; it simply submits it to the States. The 
people will have an opportunity to express their feeling on it. This 
comes up from time to time.
  I hear it at home, ``Well, you know, if the folks in that district 
want someone to continue to serve, they should be able to.'' I thought 
about that some. I was in the House before I came here. One of the very 
good Members of the House just 2 years ago had been in the House since 
before Pearl Harbor. I simply want to make the point that that person, 
who had a congressional district, as I did, had 10 times as much thrust 
in the Congress as I did because of the seniority. So the people from 
every other congressional district had no input into that. But the 
folks in that district are never going to change because here is a guy 
who has more authority than anybody else in the Congress. Of course, he 
is going to continue to be there. That is kind of what we are up 
against, it seems to me.
  In 1992, 77 percent of the Wyoming voters supported term limits, and 
70 to 80 percent of Americans support term limits. I think it is 
important to note that the majority and the freshmen who came in last 
year support term limits, people who were elected last year when the 
voters were saying, ``Yes, we're for term limits.''

  I think it is important that we consider not just the term limits, 
but what has to be done to make some institutional change in the 
Congress. If you do not like the way things have been done for 40 
years, if you want to see some fundamental change, then it is difficult 
to imagine that there is going to be change if we continue to do things 
the same way.
  That is what term limits is about. It is about the end of career 
politicians in Congress. I happen to think that is a good idea. I 
happen to think that is what the drafters of the Constitution had in 
mind, to return to the Founders' vision, to the extent possible, of 
citizen legislators.
  I was impressed this morning by someone's observation that one of the 
necessary things to represent your constituents in this Congress is to 
have had some experience in the private sector, to have had some 
experience in the real world. I think that is terribly important.

  We need fundamental change that has some impact on reducing the size 
of Government. I think it is pretty evident that the longer you are 
here, the less likely you are to be enthusiastic about reducing the 
size of the Government. Someone mentioned this morning, and I think it 
is exactly right, when people first come here they seem to have 
objective questions. They seem to have ideas. How can we do this 
better? How can we change? After being here for a very long time, you 
are advocates for the status quo, sort of defensive about what has been 
going on. We do not need more of that.
  I am very much in favor of term limits. I think that it is important. 
There is, indeed, a considerable turnover. I think the point was made 
this morning that 51 percent of the Senate has been here less than two 
terms. That is true. The same thing is true in the House. The 
difficulty is that you live in the seniority system, and the other 50 
percent has been here a very long time. They are the ones, of course, 
that have all the leadership positions, so change does not come about. 
That is what we are talking about.
  Madam President, I am delighted that we are here. I suggest to my 
associates here in the Senate that it is time to come to the snubbing 
post. We have talked about it. It is time to support what we think 
people have said to us or not. It is time to support change that brings 
about fundamental change here--smaller Government, less expensive 
Government, less restrictive Government. That is what we are voting on 
today--changing the direction that will take us into the next century. 
I urge support.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, was leader's time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for my leader time on this issue plus another issue I 
will speak to briefly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, today the Senate takes a historic step on 
whether to move forward to pass a constitutional amendment to limit the 
terms of Members of both the House and the Senate. I am proud this step 
is one promised by the Republican Party in our last two party 
platforms. I am proud we made this promise in 1994. I am proud that the 
Republicans in the House of Representatives delivered on this promise 
that the Senate will have a chance to do so in about 45 minutes.

[[Page S3867]]

  I acknowledge the fine leadership of our newer Members, such as 
Senators Thompson, Ashcroft, Inhofe, Thomas and others, who have joined 
other leaders like Senator Brown for fighting for this reform. After 
years of rhetoric and stonewalling, this is a huge step forward for the 
American people.
  I am mindful this is not the last step. While the vast majority of 
Republicans in both the House and the Senate support term limits, the 
fact is that this is a constitutional amendment. We cannot do it 
without substantial support on the other side of the aisle.
  With President Clinton leading the opposition, it appears no such 
support exists on the other side of the aisle. It is pretty much like 
the debate on the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget we had 
last year. President Clinton not only has consistently opposed term 
limits, but he sent his Solicitor General to the U.S. Supreme Court to 
argue against the term limits law that passed overwhelmingly in his own 
State of Arkansas. He should drop his opposition to term limits and 
help deliver the votes necessary to pass the constitutional amendment.
  Madam President, I share my view of why I believe this is important. 
As someone who has served this country for most of his adult life, I am 
not one that subscribes to the notion that this is about the people who 
serve in representative democracy. I know it is fashionable to attack 
politicians, but the truth is that those elected represent the people, 
at whatever level of Government, reflect both the strength and weakness 
of the electorate in a thousand different ways.
  What this is about is the institution of representative democracy 
itself. I believe that the notion of a citizen legislator is an 
honorable one. I believe that representing your constituents to the 
best of your abilities is at the core of the success of the American 
experiment over the last 200 years. It is not an effort to tear down 
this relationship. Term limits certainly are not that. Instead, they 
are an effort to strengthen that bond.
  This is an issue that not many Americans--in fact, not many 
legislators, not many anybody--thought about until recently. Now, I 
think it is clear that I have been lukewarm to the idea for some time 
and only started indicating 2 or 3 years that it seems to me if we want 
to send it back to the legislatures--the people send it back, want to 
ratify--that is fine.
  I think we are capable also of keeping up with the American people. 
The American people, 75 to 80 percent, favor term limits. There clearly 
is a sense of something going wrong. We owe it to them and the future 
generation to think about whether the comfortable status quo is doing 
the job.

  For me, it has come down to this. We are a Republic founded on the 
rule of law. There are many ways to define what the rule of law means, 
but it is the genius of republican democracy that those who make the 
laws also live under them. That is what the rule of law means to me. I 
think in some respects we sort of drifted away from that.
  It was only last year in a Republican Congress that we insisted for 
the first time that all those laws that apply to the private sector had 
to apply to Congress, as well. I think that is probably a pretty good 
step in the right direction. When legislators leave Congress to start a 
business or do whatever, they will have to bear the consequence of 
those actions in a way that they may be insulated from if they served 
15, 20, or 30 years in Congress.
  Now, obviously, I feel like I understand these consequences, and I'll 
bet most of my colleagues do too. But, studies that show that the 
longer a legislator spends in Congress, the more readily he or she 
spends taxpayers' money, suggest that this is not always the case.
  In such situations, I think it is wise to rely on the good sense of 
the American people. They are the ones most affected, and that brings 
me to my final point on why I support a constitutional amendment.
  The very nature of the process surrounding a constitutional amendment 
is that we let the people decide. Issues that go to the core of our 
Republican institutions are properly the province of the people.
  All we do when we pass a resolution on a constitutional amendment is 
allow the people in all of the States to decide--and, in fact, three-
fourths of those States have to decide in the affirmative before an 
amendment becomes part of our Constitution.
  As I have said before, the Federal Government of today is not the 
same as that envisioned by our Founders. We need to dust off the 10th 
amendment, and return power back to the States and to the people.
  I say, give those we represent this opportunity to debate, consider, 
and decide. It is particularly appropriate that we do so, when the 
issue before us goes to the core of the relationship between those 
elected and those represented. This is not an issue we should decide 
alone.
  Mr. President, there should be no mistake about the importance of the 
vote today. The vote today is about whether we move forward and give 
the people the opportunity to make that choice.
  As with other constitutional amendments, you don't always succeed the 
first time. Nor should we necessarily. Constitutional amendments almost 
always involve great issues.
  But in State after State, the American people have already indicated 
their views on term limits. A vote today to end debate and move toward 
final passage is a vote to take the American people at their word and 
build momentum for support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to end debate and support allowing the 
American people we represent the opportunity to choose for themselves.
  This is an opportunity for all of us who believe in sending power 
back to the States, back to the people. Also, it is an indication that 
we listen. Yes, we can change our mind. We listen. We listen to the 
American people. The American people have spoken, and I believe it is 
time for us to speak.
  I hope when the vote comes at 3:45, we will have a resounding vote 
for cloture--maybe 100 to 0, like we had on the last vote here at 2:15.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I thank the majority leader. The fact 
of the matter is that we have not had a vote such as this--a 
constitutional amendment on term limits--for almost 50 years in this 
country. Were it not for the majority leader, we still would not have a 
vote on a constitutional amendment for term limits. He is very right 
when he says this is not the last vote on it. This is really the first 
vote in a succession of votes. This will be with us from now on. He is 
also right in pointing out that you could probably measure people's 
desire for term limits with different fervor, but you cannot deny the 
fact that 75 percent of the people now are in favor of it.
  What we are here about today is giving the States an option of 
considering whether or not they want to pass a constitutional 
amendment. As we know, 22 States, on their own volition and for their 
own good reasons, have sought to limit themselves, even without other 
States acting. So there can be no doubt about what the sentiment of the 
American people is regarding this.
  With regard to a couple of earlier comments by our colleagues in 
opposition to term limits, a statement has been made that we need the 
expertise that long experience brings to us and that, if you are going 
to have surgery performed, you would want a surgeon with some 
experience. I have no quarrel with either one of those propositions. 
Certainly, expertise and experience in any area, standing alone, in and 
of itself, is not a bad thing. In most cases, it is a good thing. But 
what we are suffering from, I respectfully submit, in this body is not 
a lack of expertise. We have all of the know-how, all of the brain 
power that any such institution would ever hope to have.
  Madam President, I simply suggest that we do not have the willpower 
that is necessary. It has nothing to do with expertise and experience. 
It has to do with motivation. It is not because of a lack of expertise 
that we are bankrupting this Nation. It is not because of a lack of 
expertise that we have the situation that Senator Simpson described, 
wherein it was demonstrated that Social Security only has another set 
number of days before it is going to be bankrupt and Medicare is going 
to be bankrupt.
  Senator Danforth's comments, as he left this body when he retired, 
were that we are doing something terrible to

[[Page S3868]]

the next generation. We are bankrupting them for the sake of our own 
reelection. That is at the root of the problem--the motivation of those 
who serve here, on out into the next century. It will take years for 
this to be ratified, and a person would have years to serve. It is not 
about the Members serving today, and it is not about the Members who 
served before in this body. Many, many good people have done so. It is 
about what will equip us best to meet the challenges that we are 
clearly not meeting now because we do not have the willpower, because 
we cannot resist the temptation to do those things which are necessary 
for perpetual reelection. Those things usually translate into one word, 
and that is ``spending.'' Spending. People descend upon us from all 
directions, from all walks of life, each wanting their programs funded, 
and you do not make friends and influence people by saying ``no,'' and 
you do not perpetuate a professional political career by saying ``no.'' 
Therein lies the root of the problem.

  I might also say, if I went to a surgeon, I would ask what his 
survival ratio was. I think if people came to this body and asked what 
our success rate is and looked at the numbers and what we are doing to 
the next generation, our inability to even take the first step to 
balance the budget, and even if we got everything that we on this side 
of the aisle wanted, at the end of the 7 years we would still be 
looking at a $6 trillion-plus deficit, even if we did not have a 
recession or a war, even if nothing really untoward happened. If we got 
everything we wanted--and we cannot even take the first step on that 
scenario, which would still put us in a hopeless situation because so 
much of the proposals are back-end loaded, which are simply hopes and 
desires that future Congresses will have the courage to do what we do 
not have the courage to do. We put the numbers down on the paper, 
saying that future Congresses, when we are long out of office, will do 
the right thing and, therefore, we balance the budget.
  So we cannot even put this--to put it charitably--questionable 
approach into operation, much less go any further. That is what all 
this is about.
  One of my colleagues mentioned the role of money. As I am sure he 
would agree, I have taken a very clear stance with regard to that in 
disagreement. But some of my colleagues on my own side of the aisle 
say--and I agree with them--that money plays a much too important part 
in our process. But money alone is not the process. The reason money is 
important is because money buys those television ads to tout how great 
we are and how lousy our opponent is. Money is what keeps us up here. 
It is the money and the desire for perpetual reelection that is getting 
us into the problem with the deficit and the debt and the ruination of 
the next generation.
  So, if we have campaign finance reform without term limits, we will 
never have such reform that totally takes the role of money out of 
politics. There is always going to be some money involved in politics. 
You can have all the reform that you want, and if the motivation is 
still there to use whatever the system would then give you to continue 
to perpetuate yourself, the situation would not really improve.

  On the other hand, if you had term limits without campaign finance 
reform--and I assure you I am for both of them--as one example, in the 
U.S. Senate you could serve your second term, one full term of 6 years, 
without having to raise a dime. What would that be like?
  One of the other Members implied that if we did not have the threat 
of voter sanctions, we would kind of steal and pillage and do all kinds 
of terrible things. I do not know what his feeling is with regard to a 
President who is term limited and has a lame duck 4-year term when he 
wins his second term. But I think it would be a very beneficial thing 
to have Members serving in the U.S. Senate under all of the scrutiny 
and all of the disclosure that you would always have, but not have to 
worry about raising one dime from one soul. That is what term limits 
would do, even if you did not have campaign finance reform.
  Finally, Madam President, I, again, echo the leader's comments 
because he gets to the heart of the problem.
  He, above all--and all the other Members who have served this body so 
well--would not imply in any way, or reflect in any way, on the service 
of those Members--valiant service over the years. We are talking about 
the future. We are talking about a system over here that has served us 
pretty well for a long period of time, but now it is not working 
anymore. We were balancing the budget up to 1969. But we are not 
anymore. The pressures are too great anymore with the growth of 
Government, the growth of programs, and the growth of spending.
  What do we do? We do what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They could 
not have envisioned all the technological advances, pressures, all the 
interest groups and the way the political parties behave, but they 
could envision change of circumstances that would need an amendment to 
the Constitution.
  So we are talking about the future and something that would not 
diminish Congress, something that would enhance Congress and enhance 
Congress in the eyes of the American people because we would once again 
be a part of them.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise in support of Senate Joint 
Resolution 21, a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
to limit congressional terms to two in the Senate and six in the 
House--12 years in each body.
  Madam President, I want to begin my remarks by thanking the majority 
leader, Senator Dole, for making good on his promise to schedule Senate 
action on the term limit amendment this month. Without his support and 
his commitment to term limits, this initiative probably would never 
have seen the light of day.
  It would have been easy to dodge a vote--as many opponents, no doubt, 
would like to have been able to do--since the House already voted down 
a term limit amendment last year. But Senator Dole followed through on 
his commitment to ensure that there would be a full and fair debate and 
that we would have an opportunity to vote on the issue. The American 
people deserve to know where their Senators stand.
  Madam President, term limits are no panacea. They will not guarantee 
the election of sensible and honest individuals to Congress. They will 
not put an end to the influence that special interests can sometimes 
wield on Capitol Hill. However, term limits will help.
  They will help by ensuring regular turnover in Congress--guaranteeing 
that the people who make our laws have to live under the laws they have 
passed. It is too easy for legislators, who have been on Capitol Hill 
too long, to forget what it is like to struggle in the marketplace to 
survive--what it means to try to meet a payroll when the Federal 
Government is constantly imposing new mandates on a small business. New 
taxes, new regulations, more redtape. They forget what it is like for a 
family to try to make ends meet, when more and more is taken from their 
paychecks in taxes every week--higher gasoline and FICA taxes, for 
example.
  Members of Congress have learned a lot in just the short time that 
the Congressional Accountability Act has been in place. The myriad of 
workplace laws and regulations had little meaning before last year 
because they never applied to Congress. When we finally had to live 
under the same laws and regulations as the rest of the country, the 
people's frustrations took on a whole new meaning.
  It is that kind of connection with what people have to endure from 
their government on a daily basis that term limits will foster. 
Congressional service should not be a life-long career.
  Term limits would also help to disperse some of the power that has 
become concentrated in the hands of a few very senior Members of both 
bodies. It would also help to ensure that all of us make decisions that 
are in accord with the views of the electorate.
  Take the Federal budget, for example. The American people have been 
demanding less spending, lower taxes, and a balanced budget in more 
forceful terms every year. Newer Members of Congress tend to vote for 
less Federal spending than those who have served for a long time. In 
fact, a recent National Taxpayers Union [NTU] survey found a 
correlation between tenure in Congress and increased spending.
  NTU found that the 88 freshmen members of the House who were elected

[[Page S3869]]

in 1994 voted for an average of $26 billion less in spending than non-
freshmen did. The 11 new Senators elected in 1994 supported an average 
of $26.2 billion more in spending reduction than their senior 
colleagues.
  That is not to say that all of the more senior Members voted for more 
Government spending. But as a group, newer Members more closely 
reflected the desires of their constituents for less spending and 
leaner Government. It is a trend that term limits would help to 
promote.
  Madam President, 23 States, including my home State of Arizona, have 
attempted to impose term limits on their congressional delegations. But 
a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that all State term-limit laws 
that apply to U.S. Senators and Congressmen are unconstitutional. The 
majority held that the Constitution fixes the qualifications for 
congressional service, and that neither Congress nor the States may 
supplement them. That is why we have a constitutional amendment before 
us today--because all other legislative avenues have been foreclosed.
  More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote a friend suggesting 
ways that the newly drafted Constitution could be improved. Jefferson 
said three things were missing: a Bill of Rights, limits on the tenure 
of the Chief Executive, and term limits for Congress. Since then, we 
have seen Jefferson's first two ideas implemented; the resolution 
before us today embraces the last.
  Madam President, I urge support for the term limits amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today in support of term 
limits. By overwhelming margins, the American people support term 
limits for Members of Congress. In a democratic society, the people's 
elected officials have a responsibility to respond to what the people 
want. Of course, we in Washington have a duty to exercise leadership--
but leadership means responding to the strongly held preferences of the 
American people.
  Although there is a long history both at the State and Federal levels 
in limiting the service of executives, term limits for legislators have 
a short history. So, we are participating in a work in progress when we 
debate this amendment.
  It may be that term limits enhance the power of lobbyists, as some 
say, or term limits may lessen the power of lobbyists. Term limits may 
weaken the legislative branch or they may strengthen it. Term limits 
may cause the loss of valuable experience or it may lead to passage of 
reform legislation. There's no way to tell at this point. But with 
fresh faces with new ideas in Congress, it seems to me that reform and 
common sense change are far more likely.
  And of course, the Constitution was made to be amendable. Since 1791, 
we have amended the Constitution 17 times. Each of these amendments 
brought about significant changes in the nature of American Government. 
Similarly, I believe that a term limits amendment will make needed and 
beneficial changes.
  Prior to the Supreme Court's Thornton decision last year, I intended 
to introduce a statute to set term limits. That option is no long 
longer possible. We are in a situation where the Supreme Court has 
unequivocally spoken--the Constitution as currently written does not 
give Congress or the States the power to impose term limits by statute. 
So, this is not a willy-nilly amendment we are debating. This amendment 
is the only way to have term limits.
  If we do not vote to pass this amendment, the States won't even have 
the chance to pass term limits. They won't even be able to consider the 
idea of term limits. This is an important debate, and I think that 
Congress should not stand in the way. Voting to pass this amendment 
doesn't create term limits. It just lets the debate go forward. Let's 
pass this amendment. The American people want it. They deserve it, and 
it would do much good.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
constitutional amendment.
  I understand that much of what is driving today's debate is the 
belief among the American people that Congress is out of touch with 
their needs and their concerns. And to some extent their frustration is 
genuine and justified.
  We spend too much of our time engaging in partisan political games 
and not enough time working together in a bipartisan manner to craft 
legislation that benefits all Americans.
  There are many things we could do to reform Congress and make this 
body work more effectively. Term limits is not one of them.
  If we truly want to renew the American people's faith in democracy 
and return their voices to our debates in Washington then we need to 
remove the corrosive influences of money on our campaign system.
  I believe that all the goals proponents of term limits hope to 
achieve through this amendment, would be realized if we simply passed 
genuine and comprehensive campaign finance reform.
  For example, public service is more and more restricted to those 
Americans who have the deep pockets necessary to run for Congress. And 
term limits would not change that.
  Even if we passed this amendment, candidates would still be forced to 
raise millions of dollars in order to win election. And the aspirations 
of public service would continue to remain unachievable for the vast 
majority of the American people.
  In order to change the way Washington operates and level the campaign 
playing field, we need to remove the pervasive, almost epidemic, role 
of money in our political system.
  That is why I have long supported steps to reform our campaign 
system. And it's the reason I've sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign 
finance reform bill.
  We need to change our campaign system and allow access to public 
service for the American people. But, term limits is simply not the 
solution.
  We have term limits in this country. They're called elections. And 
they are already enshrined in our Constitution. Look it up, article 1, 
section 2; article 2, section 4; and of course the 17th amendment, 
which dictated the manner by which we as Senators would be chosen.
  These provisions of the Constitution describe the specific process of 
how our elected officials are chosen. And nowhere in the Constitution 
is there any mention of term limits, or the amount of time a Senator or 
Congressman must serve.
  Over the past few days, I've listened to my colleagues invoke the 
name of the Founding Fathers in justifying their support for this 
amendment.
  Well, I would remind them to go back to their history books, to the 
Constitutional Convention of 1787, which debated the issue of term 
limits and see what James Madison, the father of our Constitution said 
about this issue:

       Frequent elections; that's the answer, that a voter should 
     be able to decide whether he wants somebody new or whether he 
     wants somebody with experience.

  Or look to the words of Robert Livingston, who said:

       The people are the best judges who ought to represent them. 
     To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not 
     elect is to abridge their natural rights. * * * This is an 
     absolute abridgement of the people's rights.

  A years and a half ago the American people made an overwhelming 
decision on who would represent them. Although I can't say that I 
agreed with their choice and while I would have preferred that they had 
selected different leaders, their ballot was a reflection of our 
freedoms and rights as a people and a nation to choose our leaders.
  And in the past few years the American people have loudly made their 
voices heard. In fact, more than 50 percent of the current Members of 
the House of Representatives were elected in the past 6 years alone.
  And, in January 1997, there will be at least 38 new Senators, elected 
since 1992.
  That represents an enormous infusion of new people and new ideas to 
this Congress. And, all this change came about without term limits and 
without a Constitutional amendment telling voters from whom they could 
or could not choose to represent them.

  But even with these historic changes, proponents of this amendment 
would still have us believe that we need term limits in order provide 
greater choices for the American people.
  Instead, term limits would limit the alternatives of the American 
people,

[[Page S3870]]

because they would be precluded from voting for an incumbent. 
Abrogating the right of the American people to freely choose their 
leaders subverts the democratic principles and full rights of franchise 
that are every American's birthright.
  Over the past few days, I've listened to the debate here in the 
Senate. And over and over I've heard the recurring notion that America 
needs term limits in order to prevent lawmakers from being contaminated 
by special interests and institutional corruption.
  I've served in the Senate for 16 years and my belief in the dignity 
of public service has not dissipated. And when I look around this body 
at my fellow Senators I see other dedicated public servants.
  I see men and women who withstand personal attacks on their 
character; I see men and women who give up both their privacy and a 
stable family life; I see men and women who labor tirelessly in these 
halls for one reason and one reason only--because they want to make 
America a better country.
  Now, we may not agree on every issue. In fact, some of us may not 
agree on any issues. But whatever our personal beliefs, our goals and 
our reasons for being here are the same--to uphold our duty to our 
constituents, the Constitution and most important the American people.
  And what about all those who came before us? The great leaders from 
both sides of the political aisle who have served in this austere body: 
Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson, Richard 
Russell, Sam Ervin and today Robert Byrd and Bob Dole, to name a few.
  Were they corrupted by their tenure in the United States Senate? Or 
was their experience integral in helping them pass legislation that 
made this nation a better place to live? I for one think it is the 
latter.
  But, if we passed this amendment the hard-earned experience of 
lawmakers would be supplanted by a dramatic increase in the reliance on 
permanent staff, lobbyists and special interests.
  Instead of ending careerism in Congress, we would create a permanent 
and unelected staff bureaucracy that would run the Federal Government.
  They would have no responsibility to the American people because 
unlike the so-called career politicians they wouldn't be held 
accountable for their actions.
  They wouldn't have to go to the town meetings, political rallies, 
Chamber of Commerce banquets and the other events that politicians in 
this body regularly attend to keep themselves in touch and culpable to 
their constituents.
  What's more, small States like my home State of Connecticut would be 
irreparably weakened. Through the seniority system, elected officials 
from small States can make sure that their voices are heard when 
important policy decisions are being made.
  But, if we enact term limits small States Would be shut out by larger 
States with greater representation in Congress.
  Consider that just nine States can command a voting majority in the 
House of Representatives.
  Those nine States, through their voting power, could assure that the 
vast majority of Federal spending be concentrated in their locales at 
the expenses of forty-one other States, with fewer representation and 
less clout.
  I know that this amendment is popular among the American people.
  But, the popular way isn't always the right way.
  As Senators, we must always be cognizant and accountable to the will 
of our constituents. But, at the same time we are sworn to uphold the 
Constitution. And we owe the American people the wisdom of our best 
judgment in maintaining that solemn duty.
  Adlai Stevenson once said that ``My definition of a free society is a 
society where it is safe to be unpopular.'' And I think we all need to 
be reminded of those words when any one of us holds a view that runs 
contrary to the popular opinion of the American people.
  Today, I will cast a vote against the popular will of the American 
people not because I reject their beliefs, but because I must cast my 
ballot for what I think is best for the country.
  I hope my colleagues join me in upholding our Constitutional oath and 
rejecting this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise in support of Senate Joint 
Resolution 21, which proposes a constitutional amendment to limit 
congressional terms.
  Mr. President, I strongly support term limits for both U.S. Senators 
and Representatives. The American people want term limits because they 
recognize that service in Congress should not be a lifetime career, but 
rather a temporary stewardship. Term limits will bring fresh blood and 
new ideas into the Congress and dilute the power of the seniority 
system.
  Last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision on term limits made clear 
that the goal of limiting congressional terms cannot be accomplished 
except by means of a constitutional amendment. This is consistent, of 
course, with the manner in which Presidential term limits were 
established more than four decades ago.
  Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senate 
Joint Resolution 21, which, in its original form, would have amended 
the Constitution to limit service in the Senate to two terms of 6 years 
each and service in the House to three terms of 2 years each.
  As we wait what I believe is the inevitable addition of a term limits 
amendment to the Constitution, it is important to keep in mind that 
term limits are already happening in different ways. Voters already can 
and do impose term limits in the voting booths. Moreover, voluntary 
retirements continue at a record pace. Already in 1996, a record 13 
Senators have announced their retirements.
  It is also important, Madam President, to keep in mind that term 
limits are not a panacea. But they are a start--a start toward a 
Congress that is even more representative and responsive to ``We the 
People.''
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will vote against ending debate on the 
constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. Term limits is a 
serious matter which deserves serious debate. Amending the Constitution 
of the United States is always a serious matter and should not be done 
without adequate deliberation. The majority leader filed a cloture 
petition immediately upon calling the term limits amendment up for 
debate even though there has been no effort to filibuster this issue. 
Invoking cloture at this stage would have the affect of cutting off 
debate.
  The Senate should have a full and open debate on this matter, and 
fully consider amendments which have been offered and other amendments 
which Senators wish to propose. For example, there is no amendment 
before the Senate which conforms to the language contained in the 
Michigan Constitution which calls for a limit on Representatives of 
three terms in any 12-year period, and a limit on Senators of two terms 
in any 24-year period. That amendment would not be allowed, for 
instance, if cloture is invoked. Ending the debate now would also 
preclude other amendments from being offered, including an amendment 
which would count the terms of office already served by those presently 
in office.
  Madam President, I will oppose cloture which would prematurely cut 
off that debate and make it impossible to offer relevant modifications 
to the constitutional amendment on the ground that they are not 
technically germane. If there is a filibuster on this amendment, I will 
then vote to cut off debate so that we can vote on the constitutional 
amendment. In the absence of a filibuster, stopping debate will 
unfairly restrict consideration of possible modifications and a fair 
consideration of the amendment itself.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. I commend 
the Senators from Tennessee and Missouri for their tireless efforts on 
behalf of this measure and I also commend the majority leader for 
allowing us the opportunity to vote on this amendment. This is a truly 
historic debate and one that the American people would do well to note 
and remember.
  The amendment before the Senate today is very simple. It would limit 
future Senators and House Members to two and six terms respectively and 
it further outlines the procedure for Members who assume office in mid-
term.

[[Page S3871]]

  This measure's simplicity, Mr. President, is only matched by its 
popularity in the country and its exceeding difficulty to pass. The 
American people have consistently indicated their overwhelming support 
for term limits. This support remains solid regardless of who controls 
the Congress or how much the issue is debated. I remain amazed that the 
people's representatives continually refuse to do their bidding on this 
issue.
  This is not the first time the Senate has considered this measure, 
nor will it likely be the last. The first proposal to limit 
congressional terms was offered in 1789. In the modern era, hearings on 
term limits were held in 1945, and the only straightforward Senate vote 
on a term limits amendment in history occurred in 1947.
  It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that Republicans controlled 
the Senate at that time as well. At no time since have the Democrats 
attempted to constructively deal with the term limits issue. It is only 
because of the Republican majority that we stand here today. We made 
the commitment to the American people in the last election to bring 
this measure to the floor and we are keeping our word.
  In the past year, we have seen several measures come and go on this 
floor that--in one way or another--have attempted to curb Senators' and 
Representatives' appetites for continual public service. All failed.
  Due to the utter lack of Democratic support for the concept of term 
limits, it appears that the measure before us today will fail as well. 
This is one more battle, however, in a larger--and longer--fight. In 
the end, I remain confident that a meaningful, binding term limits 
amendment will be passed by Congress and ratified by the necessary 
number of States.
  Mr. President, we live in a democracy that thrives on the free 
exchange of innovative ideas. These ideas are the lifeblood of our 
progress and it is critical to bring them into the political process 
and into the public arena. Term limits will ensure that the people's 
representatives continually bring fresh, new perspectives to public 
service and create a more responsible and respected government.
  We suffer not from a dearth of new ideas in America, Mr. President; 
we are lacking only in the opportunity to express them in public 
service. The amendment before us today will change that, and I again 
offer it my unqualified support.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, today, the Senate considers a 
constitutional amendment regarding term limits for Members of Congress. 
The debate over the term limits constitutional amendment has shown that 
both sides of this issue are passionate about the importance of 
congressional service. The proponents of the term limits amendment 
argue that it is time to change our Constitution to address the length 
of congressional service. The opponents of the term limits amendment 
respond that not only is a term limits constitutional amendment 
unnecessary, it threatens the foundation of our system of government 
and principles of democracy. I cast my vote against the term limits 
constitutional amendment.
  My service in the Senate began as a result of an election held in 
North Dakota in the fall of 1986. I won election to the U.S. Senate by 
defeating an incumbent who served North Dakota for 6 years in the 
Senate and 17 years in the House. Because of this election, I can 
appreciate arguments about the power of incumbency. However, most 
importantly, I appreciate the power of the voters. Voters have the 
power to vote for the candidate they feel best fits the elective 
office, whether the person is an incumbent or a challenger. It concerns 
me that a term limits constitutional amendment would limit the voters' 
choice to only those persons who are not disqualified because of this 
amendment.
  It is my view that in a democracy, voters should be able to choose 
whomever they want to represent them. We should not deny voters the 
opportunity to vote for someone they believe best represents their 
interests simply because that person has been in the office for 12 
years. According to the Congressional Research Service, at the 
beginning of the 104th Congress, the average length of service of a 
Member of the House of Representatives was 7.75 years, while the 
average length of service of a Member of the Senate was 10.2 years. So 
despite the lack of a constitutional term limits amendment of 12 years, 
the voters have successfully managed their own system of term limits, 
commonly known as the elective system.
  Term limitations might be more detrimental than beneficial. It takes 
time to develop real expertise and experience on the wide variety of 
issues that come before Congress. Term limitations could result in the 
loss of this experience. In a sense, the voters already have the power 
of term limits in their hands: they can vote their elected 
representatives out of office at any election, from their local sheriff 
to their U.S. Senator. Additionally, the loss of the seniority system 
would prevent small States such as North Dakota from getting and 
keeping clout in Congress. Large State delegations would dominate the 
leadership and become even more powerful, and small States would be 
hurt as a result. California has 54 seats in Congress; New York has 33; 
Texas has 32; Florida has 25; and Pennsylvania has 23. North Dakota has 
only three.
  Rather than impose arbitrary term limits, I believe we should focus 
our attention on campaign finance reform to allow a larger number of 
people to enter congressional races. I supported campaign reform in 
past legislative sessions, and I will continue to support campaign 
reform in the 104th Congress.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, congressional term limits are the most 
toxic of the seemingly magical elixirs called reform. Alluring in their 
simplicity. Enticing in their popularity. Term limits are the blunt ax 
of political reforms.
  Conveniently, the term limits would not kick in until most current 
Senators, under recent rates of attrition, were long gone from this 
Chamber. Prospective term limits such as are before us today have a buy 
now, pay later appeal as nearly two decades would elapse between their 
passage, ratification, and the moment at which they began to clear the 
decks in Washington.
  If term limits are the medicine for what ails the Nation, it is 
ludicrous to wait so long for their curative powers. Retroactive limits 
would be in order.
  Dissenting from the majority in my party is not something I relish. 
While I have often observed, with some irritation, that in the eyes of 
the media it seems the only thoughtful Republican is a dissenting 
Republican, it is not a role I seek. My colleagues, with whom I 
disagree on this issue, arrived at their positions for a host of 
reasons. It is not my place or privilege, nor would I presume, to cast 
aspersion on motives. But I must disagree as strongly and forcefully as 
decorum, and facility with the English language, will allow.
  Never more than in this instance, am I conscious of Edmund Burke's 
eloquent assertion that: ``Your representative owes you, not his 
industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you 
if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'' All of us exercise this wisdom, 
though rarely all in the same way, at the same time or on the same 
issue. Sometimes our judgment and popular opinion converge. Sometimes 
not. And we answer to the voters, in any event. On this issue, the 
polls and my judgment are at variance.
  Mr. President, in a bit of an aside but touching on the climate of 
cynicism in which term limit polls are conducted, I would like to draw 
attention to an article David Shaw wrote in the Los Angeles Times on 
April 17 entitled ``A Negative Spin on the News.'' The subtitle is: 
``Many journalists are worried that cynicism is poisoning their 
profession. Displaying such an attitude may erode respect for their 
craft and also harm confidence in public institutions.'' A telling 
passage from the article:

       The most scathing--and most widely publicized--indictment 
     of the news media by the news media has come from James 
     Fallows, Washington editor of the Atlantic Monthly, in his 
     book ``Breaking the News.''
       ``Step by step,'' he writes, ``mainstream journalism has 
     fallen into the habit of portraying public life in America as 
     a race to the bottom, in which one group of conniving, 
     insincere politicians ceaselessly tries to outmaneuver 
     another.''
       The journalistic implication--and often it's more than an 
     implication--that all politicians are liars and hypocrites 
     who invariably act out of self-interest and self-
     aggrandizement rather than out of a commitment to the public 
     good, has created a self-fulfilling phenomenon.

[[Page S3872]]

       As Fallows puts it: ``By choosing to present public life as 
     a contest between scheming political leaders, all of whom the 
     public should view with suspicion, the news media brings 
     about that very result.''

  Mr. President, political reform debates, especially term limits and 
campaign finance, should carry an advisory--``Warning: profoundly 
disturbing to impressionable Americans who thought democracy was a good 
thing.'' Term limits and campaign finance reform proponents wrongly 
assume democracy as we have known it for 200 years, has failed. They 
may characterize their proposals as fine-tuning democracy but I and 
others see it as far more serious than that. Quite simply, we have gone 
with such proposals from Let Freedom Ring to Rein Freedom In--in the 
name of reform.
  For the past few years, there has been a furious race to embrace the 
disaffected, disgusted and dissatisfied. Thoroughly probed by prolific 
pollsters, the prognosis is in: people hate politicians, so go with it. 
Pander or perish. This destructive phenomenon is not the exclusive 
province of any party. The essential point is that having for so long 
been a convenient receptacle for hateful bile from within and out, it 
should surprise no one that all who serve in Congress are sullied. We 
are reaping what we have sown, with ample assistance from a cynical 
media.
  Having examined the climate of cynicism which breeds demand for term 
limits, I turn now to the merits of the proposal before us. What term 
limits would do is restrict the freedom of voters to elect whomever 
they please. Like them or not, term limits undeniably, fundamentally 
restrict freedom. A Senator in the 21st century may be Daniel Webster 
reincarnate, but under two terms-and-out limits, merit, performance and 
voter sentiment matter not after the first term.
  Under term limits, merit, performance and voter sentiment hold no 
sway in the second term except to the extent Members are guided by 
their own morals and sense of place in history. That is sufficient 
restraint for most Members now, and probably even in a term 
limited future. But this lack of accountability under term limits 
should greatly trouble people who believe that power breeds corruption.

  The dominant theme of the term limit movement is populist--that term 
limits will wrest the system away from the career politicians and 
return power to the people. Yet one of the most prominent term limit 
advocates, conservative columnist George Will, supports term limits 
because they would establish a constitutional distance between people 
and politicians. Just this last Sunday, in the Washington Post, Will 
wrote that ``. . . term limits would make Congress less subservient to 
public opinion. . .''
  There is a news flash: the revolutionary motive behind term limits is 
to insulate Congress from popular accountability at the ballot box. 
Remove all concerns about reelection, the theory goes, and Congress 
will do the right thing. The presumption is that the right thing must 
be contrary to the will of the people. This confirms how anti-populist 
and undemocratic term limits really are.
  That is why last year I introduced a bill to repeal the 22d amendment 
limiting Presidents to two terms. In 1947, with great haste a 
Republican majority--fresh from political exile--rammed through the 22d 
amendment imposing presidential term limits. Fifty years ago, the zeal 
was in response to the unprecedented tenure of President Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt. Not one Republican in the House or Senate voted 
against that proposal. Ironically, the only Presidents since limited by 
it have been Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.
  We were very fortunate that those two-term Presidents were such 
honorable men. But we should consider a bleak alternative. The prospect 
of a second term of a scoundrel, unconcerned with reelection to a third 
term, is very disturbing. With the prospect of another election, even 
the most scurrilous are more likely to at least pretend to be 
thoughtful, honest, and responsive to the concerns of voters. In my 
view, the 22d amendment was a mistake that should be repealed, not 
compounded with congressional limits.
  Alexander Hamilton was succinct in Federalist Paper No. 72--which 
presented the case against Presidential term limits:

       There is an excess of refinement in the idea of disabling 
     the people to continue in office men who had entitled 
     themselves, in their opinion, to approbation and confidence, 
     the advantages of which are at best speculative and 
     equivocal, and are overbalanced by disadvantages far more 
     certain and decisive.

  Term limits make elected representatives less accountable to voters 
and public service less appealing to middle class citizens. Thus, would 
term limits engender a new elitism and create ethical quagmires. People 
of moderate means, with family responsibilities and promising private 
careers, would pass on a congressional career certain to be cut short. 
Only the rich could afford such a brief dilettante fling with politics. 
And on the other hand, those who did interrupt private pursuits for a 
term-limited stint in Congress would feel pressed to keep an eye on 
post-congressional employment--a conflict rife with ethical potholes 
and considered by Alexander Hamilton two centuries ago when he observed 
that the prospect of reelection would promote better representation 
than would term limits. Hamilton said, ``when a man knows he must quit 
his station, let his merit be what it may, he will turn his attention 
chiefly to his own emolument.''
  Term limits would transform Congress into an exclusive haven for the 
independently wealthy, the comfortably retired, and those who see 
public service as nothing more than a profitable resume-builder.
  I put this forth in jest, but if the goal is to make Congress older 
and richer, we should just raise the minimum age requirements set in 
the Constitution. Two hundred years ago, when the limits were set at 25 
for the House and 30 for the Senate, the average life expectancy was 
34. Perhaps age requirements should be doubled--just as life expectancy 
has--and made retroactive. An argument could be made that the problem 
is not that members serve too long but that they arrive too young.
  Congressional term limits would make Government overall less 
accountable by vesting far more power in unelected and un-term limited 
staff, bureaucrats, the judiciary and lobbyists, rather than in the 
people's elected representatives. This is self-evident and surely is 
not a desirable effect in the minds of most Americans. As a former 
staffer I do not say this to denigrate staff, but it has been my 
experience that courage is not a staff-driven quality. Staff--in their 
desire to serve and protect their boss--is far more likely to opt to 
trim the political sails, so to speak. This is conjecture on my part 
but certainly warrants serious consideration when increasing staff 
influence is contemplated.
  As a Senator from Kentucky, I am very concerned about the power shift 
from small and medium-sized States to more populous States, resulting 
from the diminution of seniority under term limits. Since the power of 
small States is greatly amplified by the Senate's seniority system, 
they stand to lose the most when the sheer size of a State's House 
delegation becomes the principal congressional power gauge. David 
Broder explored this side effect in the Washington Post (12/6/95):

       Large-state delegations are not nearly as subject to the 
     caprice of resignation or political defeat. Their leverage 
     lies in their numbers, and they would not be nearly as 
     disadvantaged should term limits be imposed someday. Indeed, 
     there is good reason to speculate that, in the constant 
     bargaining for leadership positions that would probably take 
     place in a term-limited Congress, the mega states like 
     California and Texas would use their numbers to grab off the 
     best spots for themselves and install their allies in the 
     rest.
       You can make a selfish argument for term limits if you come 
     from one of the mega states. But there is every reason for 
     small-and medium-sized states to oppose that change in the 
     Constitution.

  Mr. President, term limits are premised on an illusion of rampant 
careerism. The fact is, voters already are limiting tenure--
selectively. And many members have bowed out voluntarily. Over half of 
the House of Representatives arrived since 1990 and over half of the 
Senate was elected since 1984. The right to vote is the right to limit 
tenure. Much ado is made over the high reelection rates of those 
incumbents who choose to run for reelection. However, this ignores the 
self-selection element inherent in those rates. Some members--it can 
only be speculated which ones--choose to retire rather than risk 
defeat. Particularly, those wounded by

[[Page S3873]]

scandal. Moreover, incumbents--but for the few who were first appointed 
to office--were first elected as challengers or in open seats. It 
stands to reason that the qualities which made them admirable in their 
first election would often propel them to victory in subsequent 
elections.

  And what of competition, post-term limits? It is persuasively argued 
that competition would actually decrease because able candidates would 
bide their time until a seat opened up rather than risk an uphill fight 
against an incumbent. This is a phenomenon we see on occasion in the 
current system. I expect the frequency would increase dramatically 
under term limits.
  People should not be denied the right to vote for someone simply 
because of an arbitrary term limit. As Robert Livingston noted two 
centuries ago: ``The people are the best judges who ought to represent 
them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not 
elect, is to abridge their natural rights.''
  Yet at its root, term limits conclude that people are capable of only 
limited self-governance. I wonder, do people in these polls that are 
cited fault themselves in their support of term limits or are they 
passing judgment on the irresponsibility of other electorates, in 
states and districts other than their own? It has been argued by term 
limit proponents that voters' inability to vote against candidates in 
other states and districts cries out for arbitrary term limits. 
Evidently, voters in other states and districts are not trustworthy. 
Take that premise and run with it.
  Perhaps Americans should be able to vote in every election everywhere 
because lawmakers at all levels of Government can increasingly affect 
people outside the scope of their own electorate. That is a reform that 
surely, and correctly, would be rejected. In any event, citizens in one 
State can affect election outcomes in another by participating in 
politics through campaign contributions. That is a laudable, legal and 
constitutional manner in which to hold accountable lawmakers one cannot 
legally vote against.
  In hindsight, among the most interesting observations made by term 
limit supporters two hundred years ago was that they were necessary 
because the Federal City would be an Eden from which Members and their 
families could not bear to part.
  The reality hardly needs elaborating. At best, Washington, DC--with 
its crime, potholes, filth, and corruption--has become a sort of 
purgatory from which most of us can hardly wait to flee and go home to 
our States.
  Where is the logic in the absurd notion that Government is the only 
arena in which experience is a bad thing? Experience is desirable in 
every other venue--professional and otherwise--that I am aware of. 
Experience certainly did not impair Henry Clay, John Sherman Cooper, 
Howard Baker, Everett Dirksen, Sam Rayburn, Arthur Vandenburg, and Sam 
Ervin's commitment to serve the national interest. To name just a few.
  There are many in this Senate today who have served far more than two 
terms whose service has been nothing short of heroic. Experience has 
made them better and braver. It steels them against many shortsighted 
proposals. But I will not name names because in this environment to 
highlight a Member's lengthy service on national television could be 
construed as a rule 19 transgression. In a term limited future, we 
would see fewer of their caliber.
  God willing, the Senate will never again be confronted with a war 
resolution. But if it is in, say, another generation, I hope there are 
some Members who experienced the Persian Gulf war debate. And who had 
to cast that vote. It was a debate which itself benefited from the 
presence of Members who served in the Vietnam-era Senate.
  Senators, no matter how bright, educated, eager, or accomplished, do 
not know anywhere near all they need to when they arrive here. 
Parliamentary procedure is mastered with experience. Defense, commerce, 
finance, environment, energy, and agriculture issues take time to 
learn. Does any nonincumbent candidate even know upon which committees 
they will serve?
  Term limits, however well-intentioned, are terribly dangerous. We 
would do the American people no favor in passing this constitutional 
amendment and would cause great harm in the future. Constitutional 
amendments such as this one are forever. Only one--the 18th instituting 
prohibition--has ever been repealed. And we cannot presume to ever be 
missed so much as Americans missed their bourbon.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I want to begin by commending the 
Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Missouri, and others, who I 
believe are sincere in their belief on the need for fundamental reforms 
in Congress.
  I disagree with their approach on this issue, but it would be nearly 
impossible to dispute that the American people expect the Congress to 
pass meaningful reforms of this institution and they are expecting 
those reforms soon.
  Madam President, it is a troubling reality that more and more 
Americans are finding it difficult to trust their Government and their 
elected officials. Trusting your Government and having faith in your 
elected leaders is perhaps the most fundamental tenet of American 
democracy.
  Unfortunately, this trust and faith has been shattered by a culture 
of special interest influence that has convinced the American people 
that their elected representatives are no longer working in the 
people's interest, but rather for their own and special interests.
  But the proposed solution to changing those negative perceptions that 
we are debating today would, I believe, represent a profound retreat 
from the principle of representative government itself.
  Moreover, what we are debating is yet another proposed fundamental 
change to the U.S. Constitution. Consider that already in the 104th 
Congress we have debated and voted on a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget and a constitutional amendment to prohibit 
individuals from dishonoring the American flag.
  It should be pointed out that in the entire 209-year history of our 
Nation that, excluding the Bill of Rights, we have amended the 
Constitution just 17 times. Just 17 times Mr. President, in over 200 
years.
  And yet in the 104th Congress alone, almost 140 constitutional 
amendments have been introduced, from issues ranging from the balanced 
budget, to tax increases, to flag burning, to school prayer, to the 
abortion issue and so on.
  Madam President, I do not believe that we should seek to solve every 
social ill in our country by making radical alterations to a document 
that was so carefully crafted 200 years ago and that has provided 
remarkable guidance to our Nation for so long. We must find alternative 
solutions.
  It has, in fact, been well established that the Framers of the 
Constitution did not believe congressional term limits would be 
beneficial to the new nation.
  Let me quote James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, in 
Federalist Paper No. 53. He wrote the following about his vision of a 
Congress:

       A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, 
     will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-
     elections, become members of long standing; will be 
     thoroughly masters of public business. . . . The greater the 
     proportion of new members and the less the information of the 
     bulk of the members, the more apt they will be to fall into 
     the snares that may be laid for them.

  It is this point of Madison's that I would like to underscore and 
that I believe illustrates why it is so important to have a mix of 
individuals--some experienced and seasoned, others newly elected--
serving in the U.S. Senate. Moreover, it is important for us to 
consider how the history of the U.S. Senate and this Nation might have 
been different had term limitations been in effect for the past 200 
years.
  We have had some truly outstanding individuals serve in the U.S. 
Senate. Republican or Democratic, Conservative, or Liberal, these 
individuals, whether you agreed with them or not, were defined not only 
by their tremendous legislative accomplishments but also by their 
character and the principles they often stood and fought for.
  Had we had term limits, a great number of these individuals would 
have been needlessly forced out of office.
  I am sure that all of my colleagues at one time or another have spent 
time in the Senate reception room, just outside this Chamber, and 
noticed the magnificent portraits hanging in that room.
  In 1955, the U.S. Senate established a commission headed by Senator 
John F.

[[Page S3874]]

Kennedy, charging that commission with the responsibility of 
designating the five greatest U.S. Senators in our Nation's history.
  After substantial input from other Senators and the academic 
community, the commission chose Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. 
Calhoun, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., and Robert A. Taft, Sr., Portraits 
of these five Senators are hanging today in the Senate reception room.
  Clearly, the great legislative and oratory skills exercised by these 
great figures can be directly attributed to their extended years of 
service in the U.S. Senate. Interestingly, not a single one of these 
five greatest Senators served in the Senate for less than 12 years. 
Taft was the novice, having served only 14 years. Calhoun served 19 
years, LaFollette served 22 years and Clay and Webster each served 24 
years.

  And these five Senators are certainly not alone. The history books 
are full of names such as Humphrey, Dirksen, Goldwater, Hart, and so 
on.
  I believe that having experienced Senators in this body is not only 
healthy for our democracy, but critical to our ability to responsibly 
carry out the constitutional duties of the legislative branch of 
Government.
  Madam President, as a relatively new Member to this body, it has been 
personally beneficial and an honor to serve with some of the more 
senior Members, such as the senior Senator from West Virginia, whose 
mere presence reminds us all of the importance of maintaining a sense 
of respect and civility and the need to pay deference to this 
institution and the traditions associated with it that have enduring 
value.
  And think about so many effective and honorable Members of the 
current U.S. Senate whose services would be lost if a term limits law 
was in effect.
  In all, 44 current Members of this body--almost half--would not have 
the ability to continue as U.S. Senators because they have been here 
for more than 12 years.
  Mr. President, judging an elected official's commitment, their 
dedication and their competence by an arbitrary time limit is 
senseless. Term limits supporters seem to suggest that representing the 
people is the one profession in America in which having experience 
makes you underqualified for the job.
  We must remember that what term limits supporters are asking us to do 
is to take away the cornerstone of a representative democracy--the 
right to vote for the candidate of your choice. More than anything 
else, the freedoms associated with the right to vote are what make 
Americans the envy of the modern world. We should not take that right 
away from the American people.
  We have heard a lot of talk, Mr. President, during this Congress 
about the importance of devolution, and returning control over local 
matters to State and local governments. The majority leader wants to 
``dust off the 10th amendment'' and we have been told time after time 
that the Federal Government should stay out of State and local 
decisionmaking.
  Well, Mr. President, the legislation before us today makes a mockery 
out of that principle. The legislation before us provides that the 
Federal Government will automatically disqualify certain individuals 
from representing their States and local communities.
  I believe, and the Framers clearly believed, that neither residents 
of other States nor elected representatives of other States have the 
right to tell the people of Wisconsin who they can and cannot vote for, 
other than the qualifications that are enumerated in the Constitution.
  And that is what term limits is all about--telling the American 
people that they are prohibited from voting for a particular 
representative because that individual has bumped up against some 
arbitrary deadline.
  Supporters of term limits argue that if elected officials know that 
they are only serving for a set amount of time and do not have to be 
concerned with frequent campaigning, these representatives will be more 
apt to work in the public's interest, and not their own.
  Quite frankly, I find this hard to believe. Numerous historical 
documents demonstrate that the Framers included the concept of frequent 
elections to the Congress to make representatives directly accountable 
to those they represent.
  The rationale was, if a legislator did his job, and adequately 
represented his constituents and advanced what was in their collective 
best interests, that representative would be rewarded by reelection. If 
the legislator was irresponsible, did not perform or fulfill his 
duties, the voters would exercise their right to replace that 
particular representative. The ballot box, as it was intended to be by 
the Framers, is essentially a job performance review for Members of 
Congress.
  But term limits would nullify this check, taking these sort of 
decisions out of the hands of the voters.
  Moreover, if a Senator is in their final term, knowing they cannot be 
reelected, it would seem to me that they would be less likely to 
represent the best interests of their constituents and more likely to 
represent their own self-interests.
  After all, they can no longer serve in Congress, they will have to 
seek future outside employment--maybe with a Washington DC, special 
interest group or lobbying firm. The argument that term limits would 
make elected officials more responsible legislators was raised over 200 
years ago at the New York ratification convention, to which Alexander 
Hamilton replied, ``When a man knows he must quit his station, let his 
merit be what it may, he will turn his attention chiefly to his own 
emolument.''

  Supporters would have us believe that our current system would be 
supplanted with a class of citizen-legislators, who are less concerned 
about a career of politics and more concerned about being a truly 
deliberative body than they are with responding to the whims of the 
electorate.
  This line of reasoning sounds like an attempt to reinvent the wheel. 
First of all, the Congress of the United States is already comprised of 
a diverse groups of individuals with unique backgrounds in a variety of 
fields, including education, law, business, journalism, medicine, and 
yes, politics. Virtually every one of us held jobs in the private 
sector before we ran for public office, and we will all eventually 
return to the private sector either when we decide to retire or when 
our employers, the voters, believe we have overstayed our welcome.
  I would like to briefly respond to those who suggest that seeking a 
career in public service is somehow an inherent character flaw. First, 
let me say that the list of ``professional politicians'' begins with 
names such as Madison and Jefferson, and ends with figures such as 
Roosevelt and Kennedy. We should remember that these individuals were 
truly public servants, and gave little thought to what Alexander 
Hamilton referred to as ``personal emolument.''
  They inspired many of us to enter into public service because we too 
thought it was a noble and honorable thing to do.
  Madam President, as I said from the outset, I agree with many of the 
assumptions and concerns that term limits supporters put forth in their 
arguments.
  The election scales today are unquestionably weighted unevenly toward 
incumbents, and challengers do not have an adequate opportunity to 
unseat sitting Members of Congress.
  One very viable alternative to term limits that does not require 
amending the Constitution--and what I believe represents one of the 
most important issues facing us today--is the opportunity to reform our 
campaign finance laws. I am convinced that fundamental campaign finance 
reform would cure the ills of incumbency that have been derided by term 
limits supporters and what have unquestionably contributed to the 
deterioration of fair and competitive congressional elections.
  That is why I have joined others, including some very noted term 
limits supporters such as the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator 
McCain, the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, and others in 
offering the first bipartisan and bicameral campaign finance reform 
bill in nearly a decade.
  This bill has an enormously broad range of bipartisan support. Fifty-
six Members of the 104th Congress, including 25 Republicans and 31 
Democrats, have signed on to the House and Senate bills. The President 
supports it. The Ross Perot organization supports it. Common Cause, 
Public Citizen and

[[Page S3875]]

newspaper editorials from around the country have endorsed the McCain-
Feingold-Thompson legislation.
  And while only 45 Senators voted earlier this year for a sense of the 
Senate that we should consider term limits legislation, 57 Senators 
voted for the resolution I offered last year stating that we should 
consider campaign finance reform legislation prior to the conclusion of 
the 104th Congress.
  This body recently demonstrated on the issue of health reform that 
Senators from the two parties can set aside their partisan and 
ideological differences, compromise when necessary and produce a 
meaningful piece of legislation that will help a great number of 
people.
  Campaign finance reform is no different, and I am convinced that 
there are enough Senators who care about this issue, including many of 
the supporters of term limits, who can come together and pass a 
meaningful and comprehensive reform bill.
  Term limits are no doubt a popular idea, but so is comprehensive 
campaign finance reform. And if we can solve a problem that all parties 
seem to agree exists--that is, the unfair advantages held by 
incumbents--by means other than a constitutional amendment, we should 
aggressively pursue that avenue before considering such a fundamental 
change to our Constitution.
  In a society that considers the right to vote its national treasure 
and most sacred natural resource, term limits may be the ultimate form 
of an intrusive and overreaching Federal Government. I urge my 
colleague to reject this latest proposed change to our Constitution.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate 
Joint Resolution 21 proposing a constitutional amendment to limit the 
terms for Members of Congress to two terms in the Senate and six terms 
in the House of Representatives.
  This Congress has passed some critical pieces of legislation, many of 
which effectively limit the role of the Federal Government in the 
everyday lives of citizens and shift power back to the States. Members 
on both sides of the aisle worked together in a bipartisan manner to 
enact legislation such as the Congressional Accountability Act, the 
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, and even the Line-Item Veto Act, all which 
improve the responsiveness of Congress to the people. In this same vein 
of limited government, accountability, and States rights I strongly 
support passage of Senate Joint Resolution 21 before us today.
  Term limit legislation is an important issue to the voters of Idaho. 
Since 1990, 23 States, including Idaho, have clearly voiced their 
support for limiting congressional terms. In 1994, Idahoans 
overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure supporting term limits. 
However, on May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits 
versus Thorton ruled that State-imposed term limits are 
unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court decision against State-imposed 
term limits, the only avenue left to implement the will of the people 
is through passage of a constitutional amendment.
  Our Founding Fathers envisioned a citizen legislature where Members 
would do their civic duty and then return home. Individuals from all 
walks of life could bring new ideas and special talents to this body. 
The natural rotation in office was what was expected by the public and 
demonstrated by the public servants. But over the years, this practice 
has changed.
  The Framers of our Constitution pictured private citizens--not career 
politicians--who took time to serve their country. A rotation of 
service in Congress allows for new people to participate in the 
legislative process. As Thomas Jefferson stated about tenure for 
congressional Members, he said, ``(m)y reason for fixing them for a 
term of years, rather than life, was that they might have an idea that 
they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and 
become the governed instead of the governors * * *.''
  Far too many Members stay in our Nation's Capital too long, losing 
touch with their constituency. The time is here for Congress to pass 
legislation to constitutionally limit the tenure of Members of 
Congress. I believe we should let the States have the opportunity to 
ratify a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Members of 
Congress.
  As we discuss term limitations, we are not without precedent for 
Federal term limitations. We are a co-equal branch of Government with 
the executive branch. But with the ratification of the 22d amendment in 
1957, the American people imposed term limits on the executive branch. 
If service for the President of the United States should be limited, 
why shouldn't the legislative branch be treated equally?
  In 1992, on the 4th of July, in fact, as a candidate for the U.S. 
Senate, I pledged my support to constitutionally limit the length of 
time a citizen may serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the 
U.S. Senate. I have kept my promise. During my first year in the U.S. 
Senate I cosponsored term limit legislation. And last year, I 
cosponsored Senate Joint Resolution 21, which is before us today, to 
propose a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Members of 
Congress.
  Not only do I believe I have kept my promise to the people of Idaho, 
I believe I have kept an unspoken promise to the Framers of our 
Constitution.
  In fact, as presented in the Federalist Papers, No. 57, James Madison 
wrote,

       The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, 
     first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to 
     discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the 
     society; and * * * to take the most effectual precautions for 
     keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their 
     public office.

  James Madison continued to write, that the most effective way to 
prevent degeneracy of representation is that ``a limitation of the term 
of appointments * * * will maintain a proper responsibility to the 
people.''
  In conclusion, I believe we can achieve this ideal envisioned by our 
Founding Fathers by enacting 12-year term limits within each Chamber of 
Congress--two terms in the Senate and six terms in the House. It is 
this Senator's view that term limits would improve the efficiency of 
the Congress and make it more responsible to the people of this great 
Nation. Let us pass Senate Joint Resolution 21 and give the States the 
power to decide if there ought to be term limitations on Members of 
Congress.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is on this side, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am told it is 22 on the Democratic side, and 
12 minutes and 15 seconds on the Republican side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator from Tennessee and the 
Senator from Missouri do not mind, I will yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I hope that the American people are not 
being fooled by what is going on in connection with Senate 
``nonconsideration'' of this proposed constitutional amendment to 
impose term limits. Basically, the way it was zipped through the 
Judiciary Committee and called up here with a protective series of 
amendments and a cloture petition was done in such a way that you 
cannot even attempt to amend it. It is bumper-sticker politics. It is 
campaign fodder. But it is not a serious debate. I say that meaning no 
disrespect for the handful of Senators--and it really is only a handful 
of Senators--in this body who actually do want a constitutional 
amendment on term limits.
  The way this has been set up almost guarantees that there will be no 
cloture voted. Certainly guarantees that my amendment, which would make 
it apply to each of us and thus make it real term limits, could not be 
voted on. Some want to be able to stand up and say, ``I was for term 
limits. Gosh, what a shame we did not get to vote on it.'' And they 
will blame everybody else.
  I suspect that we will probably see the Whitewater prosecutor coming 
in and blaming the President and the First Lady for this. Lord knows, 
he is blamed for just about everything else, from tornadoes to whether 
they made $1,000 or lost $1,000.
  Frankly, I feel sorry for my good friend from Tennessee, whom I know 
does believe strongly in favor of term limits but is being put through 
a charade. The charade is this: In the first 5 minutes of consideration 
last Friday,

[[Page S3876]]

the Republican leadership acted to ensure two things--that the proposal 
would not be fully debatable and amendable, and that there would be no 
votes on the merits in the Senate this year.
  I regret that the American people have to endure this surreal display 
by a body that is yet to complete action on the budget, or 
appropriations, for the fiscal year that is more than half over.
  Debate has been cut out. This constitutional amendment is really an 
incumbent's protection limit bill. Understand, Madam President, what it 
means. The American people think that we are voting for term limits. We 
are not.
  If we were to pass this in the House and Senate and send it to the 
States for ratification, do you know what this means? It means that a 
five-term Senator in this body who voted for term limits could have 
three more terms. They are not limited to two. They could have eight. I 
know that there are Senators who say they are for term limits, and 
apparently, on at least one occasion, have been for term limits before 
I was born. But they will keep on being here. They will keep on 
running. This does not limit them.
  For example, consider a fourth-term Senator under this provision. The 
Senator could have at the very least two more terms and probably have 
three more terms under this amendment for a total of six or seven, not 
just two terms. That Senator could end up voting for term limits and 
become a seven-term Senator.
  What the proposed amendment does say is that somewhere way out into 
the next century those men and women running for office could be 
limited, but not those of us who are here. We protect ourselves under 
this.
  What we have is a case where you could say you are voting for a 
constitutional amendment to consider limits on everybody else, but we 
end up protecting ourselves.
  So it is like Moliere's ``Tartuffe.'' In that play, a hypocrite 
succeeds for a time in fooling others and profiting from their naivete 
and trust. In the play, as here, in the end the hypocrisy is revealed 
and justice is done.
  The fundamental hypocrisy in this term limits debate is that is has 
been orchestrated to include a special exemption for current Members of 
Congress. It has been designed expressly to disregard the full terms of 
service of current Members. This is guaranteed.
  For example--I only take these out as examples--I have great respect 
for our distinguished President pro tempore who was first elected to 
the Senate some 40 years ago--some 40 years ago, when I was 15, and has 
served in the Senate since I was 15. He would be able to run for at 
least three more terms. Knowing him, I suspect that he would be healthy 
enough to do it.

  Our Judiciary Chairman observed in his additional views to the 
Committee report: ``[I] have no personal interest in the prospects of 
such an amendment. Even were it to be passed by Congress and ratified 
by the States in relatively short order, it likely would not bar me 
from running for reelection until the year 2012, when I would be a spry 
78 years of age. There are many things that I hope to be doing in the 
year 2012. Running for reelection is not on the list.''
  I want to commend the House Judiciary Committee Chairman and our 
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman for being honest in their views and 
declaring their opposition to term limits from the outset. Chairman 
Hyde made an impassioned speech on the House floor during their debate 
last year and Chairman Hatch observed in his additional views in the 
Committee report his ``strong reservations'' against the proposal and 
his reasons for them.
  I just worry that what much of the Senate is saying is one thing but 
what we are doing is something entirely different. In his column over 
the last weekend, George Will may have said it best when he noted that 
the Republican majority is ``deceiving the country about a principle of 
constitutional dimension.''
  If people really want to take this seriously, they would be moving to 
vote on the Leahy amendment, which would say any constitutional 
amendment would take effect immediately upon ratification without a 
special exemption for sitting Members. Obviously, you could finish 
serving the term you were in, but if that was your second or greater 
term, you could not run again. Instead, the way this is set up, a 
Senator can be in his fourth or fifth term, and run for as many as 
three more terms.
  If we intend to consider term limits, let us make it a real term 
limit. If not, then what we are doing is simply playing games.
  When I look at my own State, my predecessor Republican was elected 
the year I was born and served until I got here. The people in each of 
our States make up their minds about what makes sense in term limits. 
As the representative of a small State, I am acutely aware that we 
fulfil the purposes of the Senate and the best interests of our States 
when we obtain a bit of seniority and a track record on the issues. I 
urge all of our colleagues from smaller States to consider on this 
point the additional views of Senator Biden and Senator Hatch from the 
Committee report. As Senator Biden eloquently noted, the Connecticut 
Compromise and the equality of small States are put at issue by this 
proposed constitutional amendment. Term limits were viewed by the 
Founders as both ``pernicious'' and ``ill-founded''.
  I have an enormous amount of respect for the distinguished majority 
leader. I have served with him throughout my whole Senate career. But 
he would have had to leave at the end of my first term had there been a 
2-term limit in effect. The distinguished majority leader is one of the 
most able legislators of either party with whom I have served. I think 
that the country is better off because he is here. I hope that does not 
hurt his standing back home, but I mean it most sincerely.
  This could be said of all of the majority and minority leaders we 
have had here in both parties. These have been extremely able people--
Senator Mansfield, Senator Baker, Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell, 
Senator Dole, and Senator Scott. These are people that we would not 
have seen under term limits.
  I must oppose what I perceive to be a growing fascination with laying 
waste to our Constitutions and the protections that have served us well 
for over 200 years. The First Amendment, separation of powers, the 
power of the purse, the right of the people to elect their 
representatives, should be supported and defended. That is the oath 
that we swore when we entered this public service. That is our duty to 
those who forged this great document, our commitment to our 
constituents and our legacy to those who will succeed us.
  The Constitution should not be amended by sound bite. This proposed 
constitutional amendment evidences a distrust not just of congressional 
representatives but of those who sent us here, the people of our 
States. Term limits would restrict the freedom of the electorate to 
choose and are based on disdain for their unfettered judgment. These 
are not so much term limits as limits on the electorate to choose their 
representatives.

  To those who argue that this proposal will embolden us or provide us 
added independence because we will not be concerned about reelection, I 
would argue that you are turning our democracy on its head. This 
proposal would have the effect of eliminating accountability, not 
increasing it.
  It is precisely when we stand for reelection that the people, our 
constituents, have the opportunity to hold us accountable. This 
proposal would eliminate that accountability by removing opportunities 
for the people to reaffirm or reject our representation. It would make 
each of us a lame duck immediately upon reelection.
  My fundamental objection to the proposed constitutional amendment is 
this: It is, at base, distrustful of the electorate. It does not limit 
candidates so much as it limits the rights of the people to choose 
whoever they want to represent them. We should be acting to legislate 
more responsively and responsibly, not to close off elections by making 
some candidates off limits to the voters. I will put my faith in the 
people of Vermont and keep faith with them to uphold the Constitution.
  Now, let me ask, Madam President, I would like the opportunity to 
call up my amendment. I filed it to the underlying bill and to the 
variety of procedural alternatives filed by the Republican majority. It 
is my understanding

[[Page S3877]]

that in the procedural posture that we have been put, I cannot call up 
my amendment as Leahy amendment Nos. 3700, 3701, 3702, or the four 
second-degree amendments I filed earlier this afternoon.
  Is my understanding correct that no Leahy amendment is in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this point, there is no amendment in order, 
and the Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield myself 1 more minute.
  Madam President, would my amendments be in order if cloture was 
voted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until an amendment is acted upon, no further 
amendment is in order.
  Mr. LEAHY. At some time, Madam President, when my amendments are 
still pending and all other amendments have been acted on, would they 
be in order under cloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the pending amendments are not acted on 
within the 30 hours, no other amendments would be in order.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is it the Chair's ruling that if you had an amendment 
pending and the 30 hours ran out, that it would not be voted on even 
though there was no time for debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All of the pending amendments could be acted 
on but no further amendment could be called up.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what the Chair is saying, for a layman, 
is that the Republican leadership has set up a way to make sure that 
nobody would be able to vote on a true term limit amendment, that is, 
one that was retroactive in the sense that it would apply to us. 
Rather, the situation we are in is one in which we could only vote on 
something that would allow a fourth or fifth or sixth-term Senator to 
still run for as many as three more terms.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I yield the remaining time to the 
Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I thank you very much for this 
opportunity to speak. I express my deep appreciation to the majority 
leader for scheduling this historic opportunity for the Senate to act 
in a way which will allow the States to make a decision about whether 
or not to amend the Constitution of the United States to limit the 
terms of those of us who serve in the Congress.

  Senator Dole, by bringing this issue to the floor when no other 
leader has been willing to do so for the last several decades, has 
staked himself clearly on the side of the American people, the 70 to 80 
percent of the American people who have endorsed term limits. And they 
have done so knowingly. They have done so having had experience. They 
understand that the President of the United States has been term 
limited since the early 1950's, that the Governors of 41 States are 
term limited, that legislatures in a number of States are term limited, 
that city councils are term limited from New York to Los Angeles and 
many cities in between, and State officials in addition to the 
Governor. What we find is that there is a tremendous exception that has 
been carved out for the Congress.
  The suggestion that somehow the proposal before the Congress today 
does not involve real term limits because they are not retroactive 
really flies in the face of what the people across this country have 
done regarding term limits at home, for their city councils, for their 
Governors, for their State legislatures. It flies in the face of their 
efforts because none of their efforts really provide for all this 
retroactivity.
  When the people have spoken, they have decided that our laws should 
operate prospectively. This amendment would say that after its 
enactment, if it were to be embraced by the States, no person could be 
elected more than twice.
  I believe that is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the 
right direction, and it is a necessary step because it reflects the 
will of the people. We need to accord to the people the opportunity to 
make a judgment about whether they want to amend the Constitution of 
the United States so as to impose term limits on the Congress.
  There have been those who have come to say that this is an idea of 
passionate demagogs, who as a result of frustration in the body politic 
have now somehow embraced this issue because it is one for demagogs.
  This issue was close to the heart of Thomas Jefferson. It was close 
to the heart of Richard Henry Lee. It was part of the debate at the 
founding of our Republic. And then when they find out they do not want 
to call Thomas Jefferson a demagog and they do not want to say that 
Richard Henry Lee was a passionate individual just trying to play upon 
the passions of the voters, they say, well, they decided against term 
limits for the Senate and House and therefore the decision has been 
made and we must respect it.
  In all honesty, we have to understand that the Senate is a different 
body than it was when the Founding Fathers created it. When the 
Founding Fathers assembled our Constitution and when it was embraced by 
the colonies which were States, the Senate was not composed of people 
elected in popular elections. It was composed of individuals who were 
sent here by the State legislatures. None of the problems with 
elections, none of the problems with campaign financing, none of the 
incredible value to incumbents had surfaced. The Founding Fathers could 
not possibly have anticipated that the Senate would need term limits 
because none of them really anticipated the popular election of 
Senators.
  So for us to say that we need to give States the opportunity to 
implement or employ term limits is for us to allow the people of the 
United States to fine tune a change they have already made to the 
Constitution. The change already made was to provide for the popular 
election of Senators which resulted in the campaigns we see, resulted 
in the influence of resources in the campaigns, and it is high time 
that we be able to correct an adjustment which we already made.
  It is an adjustment which has tilted the playing field so 
dramatically toward incumbents that incumbency is a virtual guarantee 
of reelection. Nine out of every 10 incumbents end up being reelected. 
It is no wonder then when there are incumbencies the number of people 
who are running for office is constricted. People do not bother to try 
to get involved. That offends a fundamental value of America which is 
access and participation.
  It is kind of interesting to look back. Two years ago I was running 
for the Senate. One of my opponents was a Member of the House. In the 
year before he chose to step down and run for the Senate, there were 
only two candidates. This year there are only two candidates for his 
seat. But in the year it was an open seat, there were 11 candidates. 
Some people say that to have term limits would reduce the number of 
choices. If you reduce it from 11 to 2, I think it is an exponential 
explosion in the number of choices. So the real choice would be 
expanded by term limits, not limited.
  Then there are those who say we have to have experience in the House 
and Senate. Nothing would keep us from having experience. People who 
are experienced in State government, people experienced in the House 
move to the Senate. People experienced in the Senate move to the House. 
They would not have the value of incumbency to tilt the playing field.
  More importantly, I think it is essential that we recognize there is 
experience in this life that counts every bit as much as experience in 
the House or the Senate, and the people of America know about that 
experience. It is the experience of raising families. It is the 
experience of living under the laws. It is the experience of the 
private sector.

  One of our colleagues said that we needed the experience of one 
Senator who is particularly good in the area of scientific awareness. 
Well, for Heaven's sake, the Senate is not the repository of science in 
America. We need to welcome people from outside who know about science. 
And as I think about my colleague from Tennessee, who is a surgeon in 
heart transplantation, that is the kind of experience you cannot get in 
the Senate. When we talk about things relating to medical challenges 
and how we are going to solve problems of access for people regarding 
health care, we have to listen carefully to experience that comes from 
beyond Government. People of America know that

[[Page S3878]]

the future of this country is far too important to trust to Government 
alone or to those who are experienced in Government alone. We need to 
welcome experience from far beyond just the governmental sector. I 
think it is important to listen to what George Washington said. 
Washington said:

       Nor can the Members of Congress exempt themselves from 
     consequences of any unjust and tyrannical acts which they may 
     impose upon others for in a short time they will mingle with 
     the mass of the people.

  It was anticipated that Members of the Congress would shortly mingle 
with the mass of the people. One of those who has debated in this 
Chamber suggested that the anticipation of mingling with the mass of 
the people might somehow undermine the commitment of a person for 
service.
  George Washington saw it absolutely opposite. He thought that people 
who knew they were going to have to go out there and live with the 
people would render better service, not render lesser service; that 
their service would be more noble. And how do you measure nobility? By 
whether or not it makes it better for the general public, whether it 
elevates the general welfare. George Washington said beware because you 
will have to be mingling with the public. I think every Member of the 
House and Senate should look forward to mingling with the public. They 
should look forward to going home. They should look forward to being in 
a situation at a time and place when they live under the laws that we 
not only propose but under the laws which we enact.
  So we have a tremendous opportunity. It is an opportunity which will 
reinforce fundamental values of America,
  The people's will must be served. Let me just reinforce this point. 
Seventy to 80 percent of Americans, with the knowledge of 50 years of 
experience of term limits, say, ``It is something we want, we like.''
  I think we ought to represent the people to the extent we are saying, 
``If you think you like that, let us give you a choice,'' not impose 
term limits on them, but let us send it out to the States and create a 
great debate about it and let States determine whether or not they want 
term limits. Let the people participate.
  Seventy-four percent of the American people, according to one poll, 
support term limits. Twenty-three States, almost all of which had the 
initiative so that people could start the movement for term limits 
themselves with petitions, have enacted term limits.
  We have the new ``electronics to petition the Congress.'' Over 50,000 
people visited the home page for term limits here in the U.S. Senate. 
Well over 7,000 people signed the petition. Of those--it was 
overwhelmingly in favor of term limits.
  I believe that, in a democracy, we should accord to the people the 
opportunity to make decisions. We should trust them.
  Then there is this idea, ``Oh, somehow we have to be careful that we 
do not find ourselves absent the talent.'' There has been a wonderful 
parade of public figures oratorically through the Chamber of all the 
people who were here and who might not have been able to serve for life 
or for extended periods had we had term limits.
  If George Washington had thought that he was the only person who 
could lead America, he would not have walked away after two terms. If 
Thomas Jefferson had thought that there was a limited pool of talent, 
that the American people were a very shallow pool and you could not 
trust anyone else but them, he would not have walked away. President 
after President walked away for the first 100 years of this Republic 
because they had a different kind of confidence in the American people 
than we have heard expressed all too often here. They had a confidence 
that there was greatness in this Republic and it was not limited to a 
few who had been elected.
  I was interested in what those people who wrote me on the Internet 
had to say. One was ``7100'' who communicated, who said:

       I see that you're a Republican. I'm not. This is one issue, 
     however, more important to me than the success of any party.

  Another said:

       Serving the public was never meant to be a way to amass 
     power and money. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed. 
     Please stop the insanity and pass term limits now.

  I think what we have is a great opportunity to say to the people, 
``We welcome your participation in Government.'' We hope that more 
people will find their way into elections, and they will if there are 
fewer incumbencies that are extremely well funded. We hope that more 
people will find their way into office to bring the wisdom of America 
to Washington, DC.
  We do not distrust the talent of the American people. We think there 
are plenty of people who are capable of serving.
  We think that the nature of real choice will be expanded, and we 
think that there will be the evidence of a discipline in the Senate 
which will come from individuals who expect to return to mingle with 
the public.
  There are those who have said, ``Well, unless we make term limits 
retroactive so that we will virtually say anybody who has already 
served two terms will be out from the date of enactment forward, we 
will not have real term limits.'' Let me tell you, that is not the way 
term limits have ever worked. The American people know how term limits 
work. They have seen it work in their city councils, they have seen it 
work in their States, they have seen it work for 40-plus Governors, and 
they have seen it work for the President of the United States. The 
truth of the matter is, so many of those individuals who suggest they 
want that kind of term limits are opposing term limits altogether.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute in which to 
conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, the fundamental values of the American 
people compel us to accord them the opportunity to evaluate an 
amendment to the Constitution proposing term limits, the value of 
choice, the value of representing the people, the value of access and 
participation in politics and the value of limited power.
  All of these components of American history, all of these principles 
by which we have stood are the principles which call upon us now in the 
voices of 70 to 80 percent of the population in saying to us, ``Give us 
the opportunity to participate in Government by ratifying an amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution which would limit terms of Members of the U.S. 
Congress.''
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired for the majority side. Is 
there anyone seeking recognition from the minority side?

  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I am informed that we have permission 
to yield back the time of the minority.

                          ____________________