John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this week we will have an opportunity to save our children's future. Time and time again there are individuals that have come to the floor of the Senate to speak to this deliberative body about the rights of the children. But the truth of the matter is, we have been spending the inheritance of our children, not just their inheritance, but also we have been spending their yet unearned wages at an alarming rate. We need to begin consideration of a budget reconciliation bill which indeed will save our children from having their resources consumed in advance of their having earned them. Our current national debt is $5 trillion. Children born this year will have to pay interest of about $200,000 over their lifetime. That is just interest--not principal. When we think about the children, I think we ought to think carefully about what we do to the children when we displace the costs of our consumption to the next generation, to the children born and yet unborn. For decades now the Federal Government has spent beyond its means and lived beyond its resources. It has done so at the expense of the next generation. During the debate over the current plans to limit the size and growth in spending, I have been reminded of the philosopher's words, ``They sought to heal by incantations a cancer which requires the surgeon's knife.'' We cannot react to the countries' fiscal crisis by saying a few rosy words. We cannot make a few incantations and heal the problem we have in terms of the finances and resources of this country. We need to take the surgeon's knife. It is important to note that the surgeon's knife is an instrument of therapy, not an instrument of destruction. It is an instrument which will provide for better health. I believe we will do that, and we will make responsible--yes--difficult choices. We take the knife to the cancer and we take the knife where it is necessary to pare back the increase that would otherwise happen too frequently, with the kind of wasteful increase we have had in the past. We have to stop an ever-increasing spiral of debt, a spiral which is a spiral of abuse against the next generation. In the past few months, we have made some difficult choices surrounded by the familiar incantations of those still clinging to the discredited and irresponsible philosophy of spending without consequence or budgeting without accountability. Mr. President, I believe in the purpose for which we were sent to Washington. The people were demanding and expecting that we would balance the budget and they are expecting that we will end business as usual. They are expecting us to listen to them. We must continue. We have made progress, but we must continue on this historic journey toward meeting their demand--we represent them. We must fulfill their expectation by passing a balanced budget reconciliation bill that puts us on a path to fiscal responsibility. Now, there are those who came here in this session of the Congress who decided that two rules have to be changed; therefore, we cannot call the budget balanced. They say now, we must use different figures, different procedures than we would have used in the past. I think it is time for us to balance the budget according to the rules and to get that behind us. There are other things we might do in the future to improve our fiscal health. Let us take this directive from the American people. Let us balance the budget. We could put our heads in the sand rather than to face this Nation's fiscal realities. We could produce a plan, I suppose, that would allow minor changes. We could only tinker with the operations so that we stave off the Medicare bankruptcy for several months or a couple of years. We need [[Page S 15559]] to set our system on a sound footing for long-term growth and development. Congress could continue the ingrained habit of treating taxpayers' funds as the key to the candy store. We could wait until the year 2015 to address our problems like the national debt. In 2015, at the rate of current spending, the Government would only be able to spend on four entitlement programs and interest on the national debt-- that would take the entirety of the budget. Then there would be no money for defense for the country, no law enforcement, no food safety, no highways. It would all be just for the entitlements and interest. We cannot do that. We must act now. We must protect the children. We must protect their opportunities. We live in a global economy where productivity and competitiveness are the hallmarks. We will succeed, we will sink or swim based on whether or not we are productive and competitive. We cannot swim with a debt load on the back of each citizen in the next century so great that they cannot compete in the world marketplace.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I would like to salute a high school from my hometown of Springfield, MO, that defines excellence in secondary education. Kickapoo High School has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the excellent secondary schools in America. Opened in 1971, Kickapoo will celebrate its 25th anniversary on October 25 after a rich history of academic achievement. Over 8,000 Missourians have graduated from the halls of Kickapoo High School. These students have attended some of America's finest universities including: Yale, Northwestern, University of Chicago, Duke, and Washington University. Kickapoo High School continues to be a leader in educational diversity, serving as a model, not just for southwest Missouri, but for the Nation as a whole. The needs of physically and academically challenged students have been served by the opening of a learning resource center and by establishing an orthopaedically handicapped program. In an era when test scores are emphasized for college admissions, Kickapoo High School's students exceed the national average on the ACT by two points on each of the three sections. Students' educations are supplemented by advanced placement courses, where 80 percent of Kickapoo students earned scores, qualifying them for college credits upon enrollment. A defining characteristic of a school is the honors bestowed upon it. Kickapoo High School had seven National Merit Scholar finalists and nine National Merit Commended Scholars in 1994 alone. For these achievements listed and many others not, I am pleased to honor Kickapoo High School on the 25th anniversary of its charter. The teachers, students, administrators, and community of Kickapoo High School should be commended for their achievements and service to our Nation. All of those who have been affiliated with Kickapoo High School are charged with a duty to leave America as a better place. Kickapoo serves as an emblematic secondary educational institution and prime example of academic excellence in the United States of America.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send a modification of my second- degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to clarify the sense of the Senate that would be expressed, and the amendment makes very clear the simplicity of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I understand the Chair is prepared to appoint conferees on behalf of the Senate for H.R. 4, the welfare reform bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mr. Roth, Mr. Dole, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Breaux; and from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources for the consideration of title VI and any additional items within their jurisdiction including the Child Abuse and Protection Act title: Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, and Ms. Mikulski; and from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry for the consideration of items under their jurisdiction: Mr. Lugar, Mr. Dole, Mr. Helms, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Pryor conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a message from the House to accompany Senate Concurrent Resolution 27.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur with the House amendment and that any statements relating to the resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I come to the floor to make a motion in regard to the second-degree amendment which I have submitted to this body. It is an amendment related to term limits. I believe that it is a substantial question and item on the agenda of the American people. All the polls indicate overwhelmingly that the people favor term limits. Forty States term limit their Governors; 20-some States have attempted to term limit the U.S. Congress. The amendment before the U.S. Senate is a simple one. It says: It is the sense of the Senate that the United States Senate should pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms Members of Congress can serve. Members of this body have debated this issue on this occasion and on previous occasions. The pros and cons are well known. I do not believe we will settle this issue with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but I do believe it is possible for us to identify those of us who are for term limits and those of us who are against term limits. In order to get this vote, I have conferred with the majority leader, and I have modified the amendment so as to make it consistent with his agreement with the rest of the freshman class on the Republican side and others that the amendment itself should be voted on next April. Thus, this amendment merely says that it is the sense of the Senate that we should pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms that Members of Congress can serve. I want to express my appreciation to the majority leader for his cooperation in this respect. Last week, he assured me that he would do his best to assist me in getting a vote on this matter at the earliest possible time this week, and here we are on the first day of our deliberations this week, and we will have an opportunity to vote in this respect. The procedure which I intend to invoke in order to have this vote is a motion to table the amendment. Those who vote against tabling would be voting in favor of term limits; those who vote in favor of tabling, would be voting against term limits. But this will provide an opportunity for us to vote on this most important issue. So, Mr. President, I now move to table the Ashcroft second-degree amendment regarding the limitation of congressional terms, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the 1994 elections were elections about reform. Those of us sent here by the people of America were asked to make substantial changes in the way this body conducts business, the way in which Government is carried out in this country. The people asked us to make significant changes. In return, we made promises which resulted in their entrusting to us the sacred opportunity to serve the people. The promises we made were important promises. They were promises to end politics as usual, to curtail an imperial Congress. They were promises to balance the budget. They were promises to change the welfare system profoundly. Mr. President, I believe they were important promises. I believe they were promises upon which the people relied, and have a substantial expectation. We have made progress in satisfying those promises in a significant way. Earlier this year, the American people were optimistic about our efforts, about our willingness to change Washington. This fall, though, the American people tell a different story. Those who keep their finger on the pulse of the American public have indicated a signal from the people--a serious discomfort with what is coming. The public's faith in their elected officials has again plummeted to an all-time low. Once more, Ross Perot, talks about putting an end to the two-party system, and once more he is heard. What has happened? What is the reason for the new season of discontent? I believe it is, in part, because the people have asked us to commit to the reforms we promised and they feel that some of their agenda is being ignored. One of those agenda items which we have not directly addressed, that we have not spoken too clearly on, one that is on the minds of the American people indelibly, is the idea and concept of term limits. People are familiar with that. Forty Governors have term limits. Twenty-three States have, out of their own capacity and ability, attempted to impose term limits on the Congress. They see the Congress as being a place which bogs down in beltway politics instead of reflecting the agenda of America, and does so because of individuals who come here and just stay. Certainly, it is an agenda that the people expected us to carry forward. Seventy-four percent of the people support the concept of term limits. They believe, and I believe, it ought to be a part of the agenda of the 104th Congress. Leadership is about the messages that we send, the signals we give-- signals not of rhetoric but of action, signals of real reform. Last March, our class came to the floor to support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We spoke of a common commitment to change and a new day in the Congress. It mattered very little that we fell short of the 67 votes we needed. It was clear what we were doing and the depth of our commitment and the sense of our real dedication to that objective. I think the people understood there were some who stood in the way of that objective. But what truly mattered was the signal we sent as a class. It was a signal of promises made and promises kept. What matters is that we fought the fight, we kept the faith, we kept our promise, and we will keep moving toward that objective. We have already moved toward the objective in the budget, and we are moving toward the objective in the appropriations, and we will again move toward that objective by way of a resolution to have a constitutional amendment. We must decide what signals we will be sending this fall as the American people monitor our performance. It is out of concern for those signals that I believe we should vote on a sense-of-the-Senate amendment relating to the limitation of terms of Members of Congress. We are talking about the number of terms people in the Congress can serve. This afternoon, barring any legislative maneuvering, we will have a vote on that amendment. It will be the first time in 50 years that there has been a vote on term limits in the U.S. Senate. I believe it will be an important vote, it will be a historic vote. It does not carry with it the power of law, so it is not a binding amendment. It is, however, an identifying amendment. It is the power of a clear and principled statement of the purpose and resolve of [[Page S 15185]] this body to enact term limits, to provide the people of this country with an opportunity to change the Constitution of this country, to reflect the fact that the biggest perk of all in Washington is the perk of incumbency. The playing field is so inordinately tilted toward incumbents that individuals from outside have a very difficult time challenging. I am glad that the majority leader has expressed his commitment to voting on this sense-of-the-Senate term-limit amendment. We will send an important signal to the American people that we remain serious about serious reform, that we have an agenda which is the agenda of the American people. We will again say that those of us who were sent here in 1994 made promises--promises that we will be keeping. The promises we made are not options--they are commitments, they are our mandate. We did not cook up the idea of term limits as an election gimmick. Term limits are part of the fabric of the political philosophy of the same American people who have seen it work for hundreds of years at both the State and local level. They have seen it work when voluntarily embraced by Presidents from George Washington forward. They have enacted it into the Constitution of the United States in the 22d amendment. They expect us to make it possible to enact term-limits into the Constitution of the United States and provide real reform in the U.S. Congress. Promises made, promises kept. These promises are not an option, they are our mandate. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the American public's dissatisfaction with the Congress is again on the rise. The American public's faith in its elected leaders is waning, and I think there are reasons for this disturbing trend. I think it is because when the people look at Washington, DC, they are beginning again to see what they have seen in years past. They see business as usual. They see politicians putting self-interest first and politics first. They see politicians perhaps then moving to parochial interests or just the interests of a small part of the country. The national interest, it seems, follows somewhere after the special interests. But it takes a long time, as people watch this body deliberate, for them to see us finally get to the national interest. It sees a body in deliberation that finds it very difficult to confront the issues that the people have actually sent us here to confront. In short, I think the American people see an imperial Congress, a Congress that is perceived to be arrogant and indifferent and out of touch, and seen so because the agenda of the people is accorded a standing which is simply disproportionately low compared to the standing of the political interests, the special interests, the provincial or parochial interests. I think it is important that we begin again to restate and redemonstrate our commitment to the agenda of the American people. As the people grow in their dissatisfaction, they manifest their disapproval in a number of ways which are clear and apparent. Approval ratings of Congress are at an all-time low again. We have managed to snatch from the jaws of victory a defeat here. The American people were beginning to think that they could count on us for reform. As a matter of fact, there are a number of substantial reforms which we have undertaken. We have made a commitment to balance the budget in 7 years, and that is important. And we are on track for doing it. That is significantly different than the President of the United States who said he wants to balance the budget in 10 years. But if you look through the smoke and mirrors of those 10 years, you find that they are predicated upon administration figures, and they do not have the integrity or validity of the Congressional Budget Office bipartisan figures that the Congress is using. It is a shame when we are making that kind of progress, when we are doing welfare reform that is substantial and will make a real difference, when we are addressing major issues, that we again are falling in the approval of the American people. But I think it is because they see some of the endemic, old-time politics as usual rising again to the surface. You see our two-party system being questioned and people talking about a third party and people discussing the potential of independent candidacies with an alarming frequency and with a tremendous--well, it is an alarming array of support. There is a new desire for a third party and a reincarnation again of Ross Perot. I think we need to demonstrate that, as American people, we are a different kind of Congress, that this Congress which was elected in 1994 is a Congress where our rhetoric is matched by our resolve. It is a Congress where our agenda meets the agenda and the challenges of the American people. It is a Congress where our greatest concern is not losing a vote but losing the faith of the American people. I think in order to reacquire the confidence of the people we have to be willing again to tackle the toughest issues--issues like the balanced budget and term limits which represent fundamental systemic reform. We now have the opportunity to keep the faith on term limits. We are in the process of making good on our commitment for a balanced budget. But we have an opportunity to keep the faith on term limits. To do so will require courage--not the courage of shying away from fights and delaying votes, but the courage of meeting our challenges and keeping the faith with the American people. We came here to change Washington. We need to ensure that Washington does not change us. There are lessons to be learned, lessons about how to get things done, about how to be most effective, about how not to spin our wheels, how to take advantage of the rules so we are not dislocated in our efforts for achievement by those who are much more familiar with the process than we are. But there are things that we do not want to learn here in Washington. We do not want to learn about sacrificing our principles or setting aside the agenda of the American people. We do not want to learn how to avoid or skirt dealing with the issues for which we were sent here. We do not want to learn to act just for political expedience. Those would be substantial lessons, but they would be lessons which would drive us away from the American people and drive the wedge of insecurity and a lack of confidence between the people and their representatives. We must always be sure that we are ready to fight for principles, always stand up for what we know is right even if it means losing a vote. As you well know, Mr. President, I am speaking about our commitment to address the issue of term limits. Why are term limits important? Because they help restore one of the first principles of the American people and the American Republic, and that is representative democracy. Term limits help ensure that there are competitive elections. When incumbents are running for public office, even in years where there is as much revolutionary change as there was in 1994, incumbents win 91 percent of the time. Yes, even in the revolution of 1994, incumbents won 91 percent of elections where they were seeking reelection. How? Well, they use their biggest perk. That is incumbency. If you look at the data about who raises the most funds and who can just simply blow away the competition, it is the fact that incumbents have the ability to amass these war chests. They obviously have the most easy access to the media. They speak from an official position. And incumbency becomes a perk which is so big that it tilts the playing field. It is unfair to expect that there would be a massive infusion of the will of the people against incumbency, at least few are asking for it in the election, because the incumbents are so inordinately favored with the tools of politics--access to the podium and the resources that are necessary to buy advertising. We need term limits to help ensure accountability. Individuals who know that they will be returning to their districts or to their home States to live under the very laws that they enact, I believe, will have a different kind of incentive to deal with the public interest rather than the special interests or rather than the provincial interests or rather than the political interests, to deal with the interests of this Nation. The national interests of America would be elevated if we were to embrace the concept of term limits. Term limits would also help to ensure the right kind of voice of the people in Government by making it possible for new people and new ideas to come here. We need to open the doors of Government to the citizens of this country, and I think having reasonable [[Page S 15157]] term limits would make it possible not only for more people to serve but for groups of people that have previously been unrepresented to have the opportunity for running in elections where there are open seats. Those open seat elections are the kinds of elections that can provide opportunity for newcomers to the process--the minorities, the women who would seek to be candidates. Incumbency is such an advantage that that tilted playing field, added to the disadvantage of people who do not have a heritage of running for public office, makes their access to public office almost impossible. Term limits would help remedy that problem. We need to return to the concept of a citizen legislature. We need a new respect for ideas that come from the people, not from the power. When we allow the voice of the people to be heard, we will really again begin to see a restoration of the public confidence in American Government. Now, the problem of term limits and the enactment of term limits is a significant one, and it is compounded by the events of recent days. Last year, the executive branch, the Clinton administration, sent its lawyers from the Justice Department into court to argue in the Thornton case against the right of States to impose term limits on Members of Congress. So the executive branch has clearly stated--at least the Clinton administration has--that it is against the right of the people as expressed in 23 of the States already that tried to impose term limits on their States and on their State's representatives to the Congress. The Clinton administration has said that door is slammed shut. The executive branch opposes that, went to court, and argued in the Supreme Court against it. The people know that there are three branches of Government, and they looked to the judicial branch, they looked to the Supreme Court until last spring when the Supreme Court again slammed the door of self- government in their faces, saying you do not have a right in your State to say how long any individual would be eligible for service in the U.S. Congress. It is not up to you. We know better than you here in Washington. We will slam that door shut. Having exhausted the potential of the executive branch and having experienced the disappointment of a ruling in the judicial branch, the people of America, seeking a branch of Government confident in the voice of the people, confident in wanting to recognize the inputs of people, wanting to swing wide the door of self-government rather than to hold it shut, the people of America are looking now to the Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Earlier in the year, we scheduled that on this day and the day preceding--yesterday--we would devote these 2 days to a debate of term limits and a vote on term limits. It would be the first time in history that we would have done so, and we would have been able to vote on an amendment that passed out of the Judiciary Committee. That amendment was passed out not only with a majority but with a bipartisan majority and sent to the floor of this Senate for consideration, and, well, we are simply not debating that. As a response to our change in plans, I simply do not want us to avoid confronting this issue that the American people expect us to confront. Will we win a vote? Since the Thornton case, where the State of Arkansas's laws were struck down by the Supreme Court, it means that we will have to have 67 votes in order to win enough support for a constitutional amendment in this Chamber and two-thirds, of course, in the House of Representatives. Frankly, that is unlikely. But that does not mean we should not begin. And the American people deserve a vote on this issue because we promised them we would give them a vote on this issue and because they deserve a vote on this issue to identify who the supporters are and who the supporters are not. Seventy-four percent of the people of this country registered their approval for term limits; 23 States have actually tried to enact them on a State-by-State basis in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has said it cannot be done, and two additional States will be voting on term limits in the South in the next couple weeks. I think it is time for us Members of the Senate to respond to our own commitment to have a vote on term limits, and that is why I have offered an amendment to this measure which is now being considered on our relationship to our neighbor to the south, to Cuba, and saying we need a sense of the Senate providing a marker for every Member of this body to cast a ballot either in favor of term limits or against term limits. I look forward to a vote on that amendment. I look forward to a vote on that amendment in the near future, a vote that will not be binding, no, because it is just a sense of the Senate--not binding, but it will be revealing, a vote that will finally allow the American people to know where Senators stand on this very important issue. I believe term limits provides an opportunity for us to justifiably regain the confidence of the American people because a vote on term limits is something we promised the American people. It is something we should deliver, not just because we promised it but because the people of America want it. It is a part of the agenda of the American people and as such it must be a part of the agenda of the Senate. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this opportunity, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you for this opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the debate on sanctions against Castro's Cuba is an important one. But so is the issue for which I rise today. It had been my understanding--and the understanding of most term- limits advocates--that the Senate would be devoting all of today and Friday to the issue of term limits for Members of Congress. But that is not the case--the debate and vote have been delayed. I believe this delay to be a mistake, and today I look to establish a record of support for term limits through a simply-worded sense-of-the- Senate resolution. This amendment will state a single, simple idea--that the Senate should pass term limits. It is an important [[Page S 15086]] signal that the Senate is a new and different body than it was just 10 months ago. The results will not be binding, but they will be revealing. This vote will show the American people, who supports term limits and who does not. That is important, for identifying support now is vital to achieving victory later. Last fall, the American people sent a message as strong as it was clear: They said they wanted politicians to seek fundamental change in the way that Washington works and the way that Washington looks. And they entrusted Republicans to initiate those changes. No issue is more symbolic of changing Washington than term limits-- they are the foundation of the people's agenda. That is why efforts to again delay the first-ever vote on term limits are so disturbing. The delay on term limits sends the wrong message at the wrong time. With Ross Perot experiencing yet another political rebirth; with trust for Congress at another all-time low; with voter anger at record highs; what the American people want to see are real efforts at reform. This attempted delay signals the admission of defeat before a fight. That is not the kind of message we should be sending. The American people are expressing serious reservations about our ability to get things done. We must show them that we have not given up. The American people want us to fight on term limits. As you can see, Americans in 23 States have fought for term limits. Those States can be seen on the map behind me in red. States with more than 100 million people have voted on and passed term limits, surely 100 U.S. Senators can find the time to register their views on this issue. Why are term limits so important? Because they are our last, best hope to change a fundamentally corrupt system. In this reform, the American people see the possibility of reining in congressional power by restoring competitive elections--franking, fundraising, and so forth; reinstituting congressional accountability--turnover, and so forth; reinvigorating a Congress that's lost touch--new ideas, new people, and so forth. Unfortunately, the people's clear will is in direct conflict with the National Government's rulings. A year ago, the Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court that term limits were unconstitutional. On May 23, in U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton, the Supreme Court agreed with the Clinton administration and denied the people of America the right to limit congressional terms. To all of the voters in the States highlighted in red behind me, the Clinton administration and the Court said, ``Tough luck, we know better.'' Our Nation's executive and judicial branches have spoken--they oppose term limits. The only hope left is our legislative branch--this Congress. And for this Congress, the only option the Court left was a daunting one--a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds ratification by Congress. Mr. President, amending the Constitution is never easy, and following the House's rejection of term limits and the Supreme Court's ruling on them, many are saying that the fight is over--that it may be a good political issue for the 1996 election, but a deadend for this Congress. In fact, many of them have come to me and said ``John, we appreciate what you've done, but we have given up on the Congress.'' Well, let me just say something to all the advocates across the country whose cause is my concern. I will continue to fight--fight to ensure that the 228 names listed behind me, including mine, are once again subjected to the will of the people; fight for this idea that has become an ideal; and fight to ensure that this Congress will not only vote on term limits, but pass a resolution restoring the American people's right to limit congressional terms. Mr. President, Lincoln said, ``Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.'' Today, the will of the American people stands in direct contrast to the will of the executive and judicial branches of our Government. But I know that they too believe that right makes might and that they are depending on us to dare to do our duty. I know that this is an issue that makes some of my fellow Senators uncomfortable. One need only look at the endless delay in consideration of term limits to confirm this suspicion. This, however, is an issue of enormous importance to the American people. They will hold us accountable--they will remember. I made a promise during my campaign last year. A promise that I would pursue certain issues with determination and discipline. Term limits on Members of Congress was one of those issues. And I intend to fulfill my promise. And so today, I offer a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution. At issue here is whether the Senate will ``pass a constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms.'' And while the amendment is not binding, Mr. President, it will be revealing. For an overwhelming majority of Americans want term limits. We shall now see how many in the U.S. Senate share their desire. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second amendment regarding a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum for a time of discussion.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. I would just like to say I had hoped to get a vote on my amendment, which is the pending business on the Cuba resolution, and I will do whatever I can, wherever I can, to get that amendment an opportunity for a vote, but I do not want to stand in the way of this important resolution. So I will not object at this time to this unanimous-consent request, but will be seeking to get a vote on it in the event that the cloture vote fails, or, in the event that the cloture vote succeeds, I will amend the next business or near next business of the Senate in order to get that vote. I do not object.