[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2770-S2771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S.J. Res. 45. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to allow the States to limit the 
period of time United States Senators and Representatives may serve; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


amendment to constitution of the united states to allow states to limit 
the period of time united states senators and representatives may serve

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint 
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment regarding Congressional 
term limits and the ability of States to set term limits for members of 
the United States Congress. Mr. President, I would like to summarize 
the history of this proposed constitutional amendment.
  On November 29, 1994, the Clinton administration argued before the 
Supreme Court of the United States that States should not have the 
right to limit congressional terms. Thus, the executive branch has 
spoken against the right of the states and of the people to limit the 
number of terms individuals may serve in the U.S. Congress.
  On May 23rd, 1995, in U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton (514 U.S. 779), the 
Supreme Court denied the people the right to limit congressional terms. 
Before the court ruling, 23 states, including my home state of 
Missouri, had some limit on the number of terms members of Congress 
could serve.
  In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated measures which represented 
over five years of work and were supported by 25 million voters. These 
voters wanted nothing more than to rein in congressional power, restore 
competitive elections, and create a Congress that looked, and 
legislated, like America.
  Both the executive branch, through the Clinton administration, and 
the judicial branch, have spoken against the right of States and of the 
people to limit the terms of individuals who represent them in 
Congress.
  There has been limited debate on terms limits in this Congress. In 
1995, the House of Representatives fell well short of the two-thirds 
majority required to forward to the people a constitutional amendment 
on term limits. Of the 290-vote margin required for a constitutional 
amendment, they mustered only 227 votes. What would normally be a 
significant majority vote in the House, was clearly not enough to 
ensure that States would have the opportunity to vote on a 
constitutional amendment permitting term limits.
  One hope for the overwhelming number of people in this country who 
endorse term limits is for Congress to extend them the opportunity to 
amend the Constitution in a way that would allow individual States to 
limit the terms members of Congress may serve. More than 3 out of 4 
people in the United States endorse the concept of term limits. They 
have watched individuals come to Washington and spend time here, 
captivated by the Beltway logic, the spending habits and the power that 
exists in this city. The people of America know that the talent pool in 
America is substantial and there are many who ought to have the 
opportunity to serve in Congress. Furthermore, they know that term 
limits

[[Page S2771]]

would ensure that individuals who go to Washington return someday to 
live under the very laws that they enact.
  In January of 1995, Senator Thompson and I introduced a 
constitutional amendment that would have limited members of Congress to 
three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. As a result of 
its defeat and of the administration's refusal to recognize the will of 
the people, in May of 1995, I introduced S.J. Res. 36, a different kind 
of constitutional amendment. This amendment simply would give States 
the explicit right to limit congressional terms. It would not mandate 
that any State limit the nature or extent of the terms of the 
individuals who represent it in the Congress. Instead, it would give 
the States, if they chose to do so, the right to limit the members' 
terms who represent that State. I am reintroducing that amendment 
today.
  In the Thornton case, Justice Thomas wrote, ``Where the Constitution 
is silent it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.'' I 
believe he is correct. This is the concept embodied in the often 
forgotten Tenth Amendment that would not cede all power to the federal 
government, only to have it doled back to us where the federal 
government thinks it appropriate. This proposed amendment is offered to 
rectify that situation.
  The people of this Republic should have the opportunity to limit the 
terms of those who serve them in Congress. In light of the fact that 
the administration has argued against term limits, the executive branch 
is not going to support term limits, and because the judicial branch 
has ruled conclusively now that the States have no constitutional 
authority to act in this area, it is up to those of us in Congress to 
give the people the opportunity to be heard on this issue.
  We must, at least, give them the opportunity to vote on that right by 
sending to them this joint resolution on the right of States and 
individuals to limit members' terms who serve the States and the 
districts of those States in the U.S. Congress.
  It is a profoundly important expression of our confidence in the 
people of this country to extend to them the right to be involved in 
making this judgment. I submit this joint resolution today in the hopes 
that democracy will continue to flourish as people have greater 
opportunities to be involved.

                          ____________________