[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11670-S11672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           OBJECTION TO 2-HOUR TIME AGREEMENT ON S.J. RES. 40

  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief on this. There was 
another unanimous consent request just now to which the distinguished 
senior Senator from Nebraska objected. I join in that objection. The 
Senator from Nebraska is a distinguished veteran. In fact, he is the 
only person I have ever served with in either body that has been 
awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. He is a servant of his 
country in every sense of the word.
  Mr. President, the reason we were objecting is not that people would 
hesitate to vote on this, but a 2-hour proposal is not realistic. We 
are dealing here with a proposal to amend the Constitution of the 
United States. That is something that, as Madison put it, should be 
reserved for ``certain great and extraordinary occasions.''
  This is a serious issue--one deserving of our full attention, our 
most thoughtful consideration, and our most serious debate. Instead, we 
are asked to consider this at the most hectic time of

[[Page S11671]]

the entire legislative calendar--at the end of a session when the 
attention of Senators quite properly is focused on passing the 
necessary appropriations bills so that we will not once again shut down 
the Federal Government. This is inappropriate timing. I might say that 
it is entirely unnecessary.
  This amendment was reported by the Judiciary Committee on June 24, 
over 3 months ago. The committee report was sent to the Senate on 
September 1, over a month ago. This amendment could have been brought 
up at any time.
  I ask, why is it being proposed to be brought up now? It would be 
nothing less than irresponsible for us to consider it in the short, 
hectic time line that is available. As if this matter could be made 
worse, we are asked to consider it not only during 2 hours of debate, 
but also when one of our most distinguished colleagues, also a 
distinguished veteran of World War II and of the Korean conflict, 
Senator Glenn, necessarily is absent on a dangerous and important 
project on behalf of the Nation.
  Frankly--I don't want to interrupt the conversation going on to the 
right of me, Mr. President. So I will withhold for a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we please have order on the Senate floor?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  No one has fought harder for the flag than John Glenn. No one has 
fought harder than he to protect the Bill of Rights. It shocks and 
really offends me that the proponents of this amendment would take 
advantage of his absence to debate this proposal as he embarks once 
again in harm's way in the service of the United States.
  I am astounded to have something as important as an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States called up at this late date in the 
session. We are less than a week away from adjournment. We have 
important work to do--work that cannot wait. And to call this up seems 
even less responsible when you consider the restraint of some of our 
other Members.
  This is not the only constitutional amendment pending before the 
Congress. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, have worked long and hard on an amendment 
to the Constitution to deal with the rights of victims of crime. While 
I have not supported that amendment and very much am for a statutory 
approach to that important issue, I know that it was propounded in a 
responsible fashion. Both Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein came to the 
floor just a few days ago, on September 28, to acknowledge that as much 
as they support the amendment, there simply is not time left in the 
session to consider it properly.
  The Senator from Arizona made this point: ``It has been very 
difficult in the waning days of the session to get floor time to take 
up even the most mundane of bills, because the Senate is very much 
concentrated on getting the appropriations bills passed so that we can 
fund the Government.'' He went on to note: ``We understood that for 
something as important as amending the Constitution we want to do it 
right. The last thing Senator Feinstein and I would ever do is hurry an 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution to try to push this through without 
an adequate debate without giving everyone an opportunity to have their 
say.''
  The last thing we would ever do, as these two distinguished Senators 
said, is to hurry an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Frankly, that 
should be the last thing any U.S. Senator should do--Republican or 
Democrat. But to ask to consider an amendment to the Constitution that 
would for the first time in our history cut back on the First Amendment 
and to propose that the Senate do so under a 2-hour time agreement 
would be just that. It comes across as just politics.
  The sponsor of this amendment, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Utah, told reporters last Friday that he did not have the votes to win 
it, that this amendment was not going to pass. If it is not going to 
pass, why are we even being asked to bring it up as a constitutional 
amendment in these waning days? It is because it is not a question of 
passing this amendment that the request is being made. It is to get 
some material for a campaign commercial. It is for a sound bite, for 
30-second attack ads, politics at its worst. It has less to do with 
passing an amendment than with avoiding things that we should be doing, 
like HMO reform, or protecting the Social Security system, or 
protecting veterans' health care.
  In the closing days of a session, where Congress has not passed a 
budget, which was required to be passed by April 15, where both sides 
flirt with the idea of what might happen with another Government 
shutdown, we should be completing the matters that must be completed 
this week.
  Obviously, there will be amendments that may come up from all sides 
for political points. But the one place that should be off limits for 
such political points is the Constitution of the United States--this 
short and powerful document that holds the greatest democracy history 
has ever known together. We should not trivialize it by talking about a 
2-hour debate to amend it.
  Mr. President, even as we speak here today, this Congress is facing a 
major test of our Constitution just down the hall in the other body. 
This is a test that no matter how one looks at it, no matter what 
position one takes, whether that of special prosecutor Starr, that of 
the President, or that of anybody else, the American people, no matter 
how they feel about this, have some sense that the bedrock of our 
country is our Constitution, and somehow the Constitution, if upheld by 
535 people, men and women who are sworn in a most solemn oath to uphold 
that Constitution, that somehow the Constitution will pull us through.
  Mr. President, having said that, I believe that no matter how much 
politics may or may not get played, that in the end the American people 
will be justified in relying on us and the Constitution. But we do not 
give them hopes in that if we in turn trivialize the Constitution.
  At one time this year, I am told, there were over 100 amendments 
filed in the Congress to the Constitution--over 100 amendments. Somehow 
some feel that Congress should be considering over 100 amendments and 
asking this great country to consider 100 amendments to its 
Constitution.
  Mr. President, the genius of our Constitution and the reason why this 
democracy has been able to survive is that we have been very careful 
about amending it--extremely careful about amending it, because we like 
the integrity of it, the consistency of it, and in some ways the 
comfort of a Constitution that we know so well.
  So we should never hurry through an amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution. We should never try to push one through without an 
adequate debate. We should never try to do it without giving everyone 
an opportunity to have their say. Especially today, Mr. President, with 
the crisis the country faces, we of all people--the Members of the U.S. 
Senate--should make it very clear to the country that we revere the 
Constitution, and that, whatever else we may get involved in with 
regard to politics, the Constitution will not be part of that.
  There are over a quarter billion Americans--over a quarter of a 
billion Americans. Only 100 of us get the opportunity to serve in this 
Chamber at any time. The seat I now hold, in the last 58 years only two 
Vermonters have held this seat. I am one of the two in 58 years. It is 
a great privilege. Frankly, it is one that humbles me every day when I 
come to work. I still feel the same thrill coming up this Hill and 
coming into this Chamber as I felt when I was a day away from being a 
34-year-old prosecutor in Vermont and was the junior-most Member of the 
U.S. Senate.
  Part of that thrill is to know that it is a rare opportunity, a rare 
privilege, an honor that I have never been absolutely sure I deserve, 
but one I cherish, given to me by the people of Vermont to represent 
them and to speak as one of the 100 voices for this country, in full 
knowledge that there will be somebody else outstanding at this seat who 
will also represent my State of Vermont and the United States. But I 
hope that they will carry with them the same reverence for the 
Constitution that I feel I carry. There will be times to amend the 
Constitution. We did it after the tragic death of President Kennedy to 
allow for the succession of a Vice President. Time showed the necessity 
for it and the American public

[[Page S11672]]

came together and knew the need for it.

  But let us make it very clear how we feel about the Constitution and 
the Bill of Rights, as the 100 who hold this responsibility, so that 
the American people know that if we are going to change our 
Constitution, we will do it with real debate and real consideration, 
and all 100 of us will be able to stand up on this floor and vote.
  Now, the entire Senate has known--in fact, the Nation has known--for 
weeks that Senator Glenn would be unavailable this week, and certainly 
that alone would be a reason not to bring this up now. Senator Glenn is 
one of the most distinguished Americans of all time. He obviously 
should have a chance to vote on this. So I am glad the Senator from 
Nebraska has lodged the objection he did. I concur with it. I have 
voted on this proposed constitutional amendment before. I am not afraid 
to do so again. But the First Amendment, the Constitution, the Bill of 
Rights deserve more than cursory attention.
  Let us all make it clear to the people of this country that the 
Constitution stands first and foremost. We serve here only for the time 
our States allow us to serve. The Constitution predated us and will be 
here after us.
  I see the distinguished majority leader once again in the Chamber, 
and so I will yield the floor.

                          ____________________