Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week. I yield to the majority leader, Mr. DeLay, for the purposes of informing us of the schedule.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the budget resolution which we have passed, I know the Senate has appointed conferees, but we have not yet appointed conferees. Does the leader know when we might appoint conferees for the budget conference? I yield to the leader.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this has been an extraordinarily serious debate. It has been in many ways a real debate, with each Member rising and understanding the seriousness of the issues which we consider. On the one hand, we consider the life of one young woman, a young woman struck by tragedy, shared by her family and by her friends and by her country. One of the striking facts of American life and American culture is the great importance that America puts on the individual: One life, one swallow that God cares for and plans for. We are here as colleagues who have almost to a person experienced the same kind of pain and trauma that the Schiavo family now faces. The gentlewoman from Ohio correctly stated that Terri is loved by her husband, by her parents, by her brother, by others in her family. Those of us who have been in that place know how difficult it is. I had not expected, as my colleagues had not expected, to be back in this House to consider this legislation. When we were called back by the Speaker, and the leader and I discussed the circumstances under which the call would come, trying to accommodate Members as best as possible, I did what I presumed many of you did. I referred to the facts that I could find. On the one hand, my reaction was that I am concerned that we appear to be a Congress that is flexible on the jurisdiction of courts. When we agree with the decisions that courts make, we leave them jurisdiction. When we think they may make a decision that we want, we try to give them additional jurisdiction. But when we disagree with the courts, we have had legislation on this floor in recent months to take from them jurisdiction. If we pursue that course as a country, I suggest to you that we will become a Nation of men and of politicians, not a Nation of laws. The fact that we are a Nation of laws has distinguished us very greatly from many other nations of the world, and we have held up that distinction as a critically important one. We now have troops arrayed in Iraq to support that principle, of the individual, of freedom, and of law. So I believe tonight, Mr. Speaker, that every Member will vote on behalf of Terri Schiavo tonight, but they will see their responsibility in that act differently. I believe, Mr. Speaker, they will see it honestly and sincerely, and realizing the duty they have by lifting their hand and swearing an oath to our constitution and to our country. So, Mr. Speaker, I did, as I said what I suppose many have done, I went to the proceedings that have occurred in the Terri Schiavo case, caused by the absence of a written directive. I have three daughters, Mr. Speaker. They are all adults. They do not live with me now, but I see them regularly and I love them dearly. And since the loss of their mother, we have become even more close. And I heard the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) speak, and as I heard her speak I felt a tear when she referred to Mr. Wolfson, whom I do not know, but whose report I have read. Mr. Wolfson was asked not by the mother and father, not by the husband, but by the State to try to determine as best he could what the medical evidence led him to conclude. He was not an advocate of the parents or of the husband. He perceived himself correctly as the advocate of Terri Schiavo. His report is a compelling one. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) said that she knows Mr. Wolfson, and knows him to be a man of wisdom and deep compassion and with a sense of responsibility. Then she spoke of her own daughter and such a condition, and the discussion she had with her daughter, and I hope many of you heard her say this, that her daughter said to her that if she was in that state she would not want to be left in that state by her mother, and she said, ``No, Mom, if you really loved me, you would let me go to my rest and be with God.'' If I thought the Florida courts had dealt with this in a superficial and uncareful way, perhaps, perhaps I would feel that we ought to interpose our view. But no fair reading of the court's decision at the lower court, no fair reading of the disposition by the District Court of the United States, in which they said in quoting Judge Altobrand of the Supreme Court of Florida, ``Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any similar cases, have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.'' This report is approximately 50 pages long that was issued by Mr. Wolfson. I urge my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to read this. He said he had not. All of us ought to read it. This case, tragically, is not alone in the circumstances that have occurred. The report says that the Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa's family had been told of her intention, the family members, mom and dad, had been told of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. All of us can understand that, hopefully. The wrenching decision that it would be for a parent to take an action which would inevitably lead to the loss of life of their daughter. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, Mr. Wolfson went on, the family acknowledged that Teresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state. The report seems to indicate to me that any fair reading of it would say that very careful consideration had been given. I know that there are some doctors among us who have looked at reports and perhaps looked at tapes and concluded, contrary to the doctors who have examined her, that this was not the case. The court, however, in an evidentiary hearing and after due consideration said clear and convincing evidence at the time of trial supported a determination that Mrs. Schiavo would have chosen in February 2000 to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures, so that it has been concluded by all of the fact finders in the court systems of the United States, in the State of Florida, under the statutes, as the chairman has pointed out, established by the State of Florida to deal with this extraordinarily difficult human issue because, like birth, death will come to us all. To some of us it will come in a way that will not raise such wrenching questions, but some few of us will individually and with our families have to face this decision; and properly the system should be followed to protect us so that neither a husband nor a mother nor a father nor anybody else can make that decision in a manner that is not fair, that does not have due process and does not protect us as individuals. In reading the record, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded that the State of Florida in its wisdom provided for that process and accomplished that end. Because of that and because I care about our Federal system and because I care about our Constitution and, yes, because I care not knowing her individually but because I care for her as a child of God, I believe that this legislation should not pass.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments and would make it clear to the House, Mr. Speaker, that of course one of the considerations is Members are trying to get back. They have had 17 hours notice of reconvening and with the vote to occur at 12, obviously, 9 o'clock will have been 14 hours, and the reason we did not want to go sooner is because there are Members on either side of this question who would want to make their positions known. So that is the reason for our concern. So I appreciate the gentleman's comment, and my expectation then is that we will go back in at 9. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection under those representations. The SPEAKER? Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. It is also my understanding, Mr. Leader, that although we will recess to the call of the Chair, it would be, as I understand it, the intention of the Chair not to recall the House until 9 p.m. tonight.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader anticipated my next question. And I appreciate your comments. This is, obviously, a very serious issue and we are prepared to deal with it seriously. We appreciate the fact that this provides for sufficient time in debate for the issues to be raised and addressed by the House of Representatives. My second question, which you have anticipated, is that in fact Members can expect at 12 midnight, at the conclusion of the 3 hours of debate between 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, for the vote to occur on the pending legislation; is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and if the majority leader will answer a question, it is my understanding that we have an agreement that there will be, pursuant to this unanimous consent request, debate on the pending piece of business, the House bill or the Senate Bill containing the House language, between 9 p.m. and 12 midnight this day; is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just went back to my office after I spoke, and I heard the gentleman speaking just now. And he talked about waste, fraud and abuse. And my question to the gentleman is, you have been through the budget hearings. Why do you suppose it is that the Bush administration over the last 50 months has not rooted out that waste, fraud, and abuse?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that occurred to me as well. I thank the gentleman for his response.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget conclusively demonstrates one thing: that when it comes to audacity, our friends on the other side of the aisle have an unlimited supply. Yesterday Republican leaders, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, claimed on this floor that the policies adopted by the Republican Party last year reduced last year's budget deficit by $109 billion. What an extraordinary Lewis Carroll ``Alice in Wonderland'' representation. You incurred over $350 billion of deficit, as you well know. The only thing you reduced was the inflated figure the White House came with at the beginning of the year. A figure that, by the way, was supposed to be zero, as I recall, the 2001 budget. On the Republican Party's watch, the Federal Government recorded the worst budget deficit in American history, $412 billion in fiscal year 2004. Four hundred and twelve billion dollars of deficit spending, and that is counting using every nickel of Social Security, which you said you were not going to do, which the President said you were not going to do. And you had a ``lockbox.'' It is a sieve box. Our Republican friends, it appears, are the only people who believe that a $412 billion deficit is something to brag about. For years they have preened as fiscal conservatives, but in less than 48 months they have turned the projected 10-year budget surplus, a $5.6 trillion surplus that they were handed, that President Bush from this rostrum said we had as a result of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, $5.6 trillion, into a deficit today in 48 months. I will put up 8. Forty-eight months, $4 trillion dollars. That is a $9.6 trillion turnaround or $2 trillion plus a year. We ought to be ashamed of that. We ought to be ashamed to tell our children that that is what we have done to them. We ought to be ashamed to tell our grandchildren, of which I have three, that that is what we have done to them and their generation. We have added more than $2.2 trillion to the national debt in 48 months. The entire debt of the United States of America from 1789 to 1981, when I came to Congress, was $985 billion, cumulative debt. From 1789 to 1981, $985 billion. Last year we raised the debt $984 billion in one year. That is the height of fiscal irresponsibility, and I suggest it is also a fiscally immoral act and is the abuse of our children and grandchildren and generations yet to come, who in their time will face a challenge perhaps like Iraq, perhaps like AIDS, perhaps a tsunami or other natural disaster, and they will look around for resources to respond to their crisis in their time and say, oh, my goodness, the resources were spent by this Congress and by the previous Congress. What a shame. The Democratic budget that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers has balance by 2012. It has the PAYGO system, which Mr. Greenspan is for, but you are not for because you do not want to pay. You talk about cutting taxes or raising taxes, but what you are really saying is you do not want to pay for what you are buying. And you buy because all the spending that we have incurred is in your budgets. All of the spending is in budgets. We cannot control the budgets. So all of the spending, but there is very little of the pain. That is fiscally irresponsible. I would like to see who is going to vote for the bankruptcy bill when it comes on the floor that want responsible borrowers. I will vote for the Spratt alternative because it is a responsible alternative, and I will enthusiastically and proudly and morally vote against the Republican alternative.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the integrity of the people's House supersedes the interests of any individual Member who is privileged to serve here, of either political party. We bear an individual duty, as well as a collective obligation, to abide by the highest ethical standards and to conduct ourselves in a manner that instills public confidence in this institution. Yet, today, the ethics process in this House is at a standstill. Our bipartisan process to address alleged ethics violations has been stymied by a partisan roadblock that is inconsistent with the purpose and history of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has introduced a resolution that would remove this roadblock and restore the ethics rules that were adopted on a bipartisan basis in 1997. I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Mollohan) resolution. Let us restore the ethics rules that guided us for the last four Congresses. Let us ensure that our ethics process is bipartisan and commands the respect of the American people. We ought to expect no less of ourselves.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I thank our new chairman and congratulate him on his new position. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this supplemental appropriations bill, because I believe it is imperative to support our men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and to continue our Nation's important work there. Our Nation must finish what it has begun. We cannot disregard the bravery of millions of Iraqi citizens who turned out to vote in January. Failure there, in my opinion, is not and should not be an option. This legislation also is a recognition of the bravery and courage of our service men and women, more than 1,500 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice for freedom. As Tom Friedman pointed out in the New York Times in February: ``There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq.'' I share that view. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is more than mere coincidence that over the last several months the winds of democratic reform have begun to blow, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority. But we must harbor no illusions about the prospects for democratic reform in lands that have never known it. However, I believe that it is in our Nation's interests to encourage and promote it. Mr. Chairman, I also want to note that this legislation includes funding for food and humanitarian assistance in Sudan, as well as tsunami relief. However, despite these important funding requests, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this bill is far from perfect. In many respects it is troubling. This Congress has a constitutional obligation, a duty, on behalf of the voters who elected us to serve here to hold the administration accountable for such expenditures. We have asked for a report. We have not gotten that report yet. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) mentioned that in our markup. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) mentioned that in our markup. The American public wants to support this effort but wants to do so in an effective, honest and efficient manner. It is our responsibility to ensure that. It is clear that the administration has included many measures in addition that are not emergencies. We understand that practice. It has happened before. But I believe with all due respect that we have not met our oversight requirements. This bill is approximately $82 billion. In talking to staff, and maybe I stand to be corrected, but I believe that there are only two appropriations bills, Defense and Labor and Health that are larger than this $82 billion bill. Now there may be another one. I think VA-HUD used to be but we do not have VA-HUD. What does that mean? That means we are passing the third largest appropriations bill that we will pass in the Congress. What does that mean? We are passing the third largest appropriations bill through this House without a single hearing, not one. There was no hearing in subcommittee, any of the subcommittees. There was no hearing in the full committee. We had 2\1/2\ hours of consideration in the full committee. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we literally hold hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of hearings on the individual bills. As a result, individual Members have the opportunity to ask questions, to make sure themselves that the money that is asked for is being spent appropriately. As I said, I will support this bill. I do not hold our new chairman responsible for this. This is a supplemental. It came down relatively late. Our men and women are at risk. We need to get this money moving. I understand that. But I suggest to my colleagues that oversight is critical, and I would urge the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), that as we proceed with further consideration of these items that we exercise oversight carefully in the coming months to assure ourselves that this money is being spent as we intend it to be. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his answers.

Mr. HOYER. Mr Speaker, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule of the week to come, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. And I think the gentleman is correct. There were a substantial number of amendments. I would hope that those Members on either side of the aisle who have substantive amendments to offer, in light of the fact that we have been waiting on this bill for some time, would have ample opportunity on either side of the aisle, and I appreciate the leader's focus on that. Mr. Speaker, lastly, if I can, can the majority leader tell us what his thoughts are in terms of scheduling, we have 2 weeks left before the Easter work period, with reference to either the supplemental appropriation and/or the budget?

Mr. HOYER. So, Mr. Speaker, it would be his expectation that we would consider both those bills before the break?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Let me say that I am pleased, and I know our side is and I am sure the gentleman's side is as well and I know the Governors and county officials throughout the country are pleased, to see that the transportation bill is on the floor. This was a bill, as the majority leader knows, that expired, I think, September 30, 2003, and we have done extensions since that time. It is scheduled for 2 days on the calendar, as I understand, and we just heard the announcement of the Committee on Rules chairman that there may be limitations to amendments in the bill. In light of the fact that I know there are still some substantial questions, this bill was reported out on voice vote unanimously but with one of the most contentious issues, as I understand it, left unresolved in terms of donor/donee States. Can the majority leader amplify, perhaps, on what the Committee on Rules chairman said in terms of whether we will have general debate on one day and amendments on the next, or does he think he will start considering amendments on the first day of consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Virginia Saunders, Program Operations and Evaluation Specialist for Congressional Documents, in the Office of Congressional Publishing Services at the Government Printing Office, as she approaches her 60th anniversary of dedicated Federal service, May 26, 2005. Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a habit: Ten years ago, on the occasion of Ms. Saunders' 50th anniversary of Federal service, I rose to recognize Ms. Saunders' achievements, and I expect to do so again ten years from now. Born Virginia R. Frisbie in Darlington, Maryland, on October 11, 1926, Ms. Saunders spent her entire career in service to her fellow Americans. After working briefly at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, she came to the Government Printing Office on February 4, 1946, as a war service junior clerk-typist in the division of public documents, stock section. Two years later, she was promoted to the division of public documents reference section. In February 1951, Ms. Saunders was promoted to indexing clerk and earned subsequent promotions in the same classification. In July 1958, she was promoted to library technician. Becoming a congressional documents specialist in April 1970, she was then promoted to supervisor of the congressional documents section in July 1974. In October 1983, Ms. Saunders assumed the position of congressional documents specialist in the congressional printing management division, customer services, and in September 2004 she was promoted to her current position. As I pointed out ten years ago, although one may not yet recognize the name of this outstanding GPO employee, the end product of her dedicated efforts is certainly familiar. Ms. Saunders has primary responsibility for the Congressional Serial Set, which is a compilation of all the House and Senate documents and reports issued for each session of Congress. Dummy volumes establishing the format for each edition are prepared and assigned a serial number following each session of Congress. The actual books are produced by GPO's binding division, often as many as 100 volumes per set for each session of Congress. As a chronicle of work of the Congress over the years, the Congressional Serial Set is rivaled only by the Congressional Record. While the Serial Set records behind-the-scenes legislative activities for the United States, the Congressional Record reflects the ``in- session'' proceedings. Distributed to the House and Senate libraries, the Archives, the Library of Congress, and depository libraries, the Congressional Serial Set joins the Congressional Record in offering students and historians a rich insight into the American system of government. Virginia Saunders makes all that possible. In late 1989, Ms. Saunders recognized the importance of the depository library program in informing the Nation, and drew upon her then-43 years of GPO experience to submit an employee suggestion regarding the appendix to the Iran-Contra Report to Congress. She suggested that this 40-volume publication, which was printed as both a Senate and House report, be bound only once for the serial set volumes of House and Senate reports that are sent to depository libraries. She further suggested that the Schedule of Volumes, a listing of the bound volumes, contain a notation explaining the missing serial number volumes. The implementation of this suggestion resulted in a reduction of 13,740 book volumes to be bound, saving the Federal Government over $600,000. In recognition of these efforts, she received GPO's top monetary Suggestion Award for that year. In ceremonies held on January 9, 1991, Ms. Saunders received a Presidential letter of commendation under the Quality and Management Improvement Award Program. In his letter to Ms. Saunders, President George H.W. Bush noted, ``You have demonstrated to an exceptional degree my belief that Federal employees have the knowledge, ability, and desire to make a difference.'' As one with the privilege of representing tens of thousands of Marylanders in Federal service, I know this to be true. In tribute to her work on the Congressional Serial Set, in 1999 Ms. Saunders received the James Bennett Childs Award from the Government Documents Roundtable of the American Library Association. The ALA honored Ms. Saunders' ``distinguished contribution to documents librarianship,'' and paid ``grateful recognition'' of a lifetime of exceptional achievements in this important field of endeavor. I know my colleagues and Ms. Saunders' family, friends, and co- workers join me in congratulating her on 60 years of exemplary Federal service. See you in 10 years, Virginia!

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in the constantly changing world of Capitol Hill, all of us who are privileged to serve here recognize that people come and go--Members, staff, journalists, lobbyists and others. And, if you work hard and have some luck, you can make your mark and make a difference in this great city and the life of our Nation. Today, we mourn the loss of a truly wonderful woman who clearly did just that by establishing, along with her husband, one of Washington's enduring institutions--the Monocle restaurant. For 25 years, Helen Anton Valanos and her husband, Conrad (``Connie''), operated the Monocle, which the Washingtonian magazine recently said ``remains a Hollywood East of political stars,'' and ``a sort of political refuge flying a white flag . . . a place where Republicans and Democrats mix over food and drink and the bad blood between political parties seems to get bottled and checked at the door.'' Mrs. Valanos passed away on January 4th in Boca Raton, Florida, where she had lived since 1985. But the memories of her--like the political lore that has been generated at the Monocle for more than four decades--will always be with us. She was born in Anderson, Indiana, and graduated from the University of Miami before settling in Washington with Connie in 1950. She worked with her husband in their accounting firm, and then, in 1960, they opened the Monocle. As the Washingtonian recounted: ``The Monocle opened with no advertising, no sign outside and all 86 seats filled for lunch.'' And thus was born, in September 1960, a place to see and be seen. Today, says John Valanos, who since 1989 has run the restaurant that his parents started, three-quarters of his customers are ``people coming to the Hill to do business or to show friends or family what Washington is all about. They stop to see the photos on the wall, to experience some of the history that makes us unique. They say this is where JFK dined, where Mark Russell taped his CNN shows.'' During much of that time, as The Washington Post recently noted: ``Mrs. Valanos, a stylish presence at the restaurant for 25 years, would leave her bookkeeping duties upstairs, enter the restaurant and sweep through the room, greeting customers and making sure the regulars had a momentary chat with the owner.'' The secret to the Monocle's success is not only its proximity to Capitol Hill, its great food and its unique ambience, but also the fact that Connie and Helen--and now their son John--have nurtured a politically nonpartisan establishment and worked to protect the privacy of the public figures who dined there. Personally, I remember going to the Monocle when I was still a Congressional aide in the 1960s, and still go there for dinner and political fund-raisers. I know that I speak for literally thousands of Members and others in offering my deepest condolences to Connie, John, the Valanos' other son, George, and the entire Valanos family for their loss.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, H. Con. Res. 45, recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education programs. I have long been a strong advocate for music education programs, both in my home state of Maryland and nationally. I believe that music education should be available to students of all ages and a part of every student's academic experience. Music education programs enrich the whole student, and are a critical component to a well-rounded academic curriculum. In my home state of Maryland, educators and administrators have worked to integrate music and arts programs into academic curriculums in order to provide students with these important benefits. At a time when education programs are struggling for adequate funding and state and local governments across the country face tremendous budget pressures, it is more important than ever to highlight and emphasize the importance of music education programs. Music education can also enhance intellectual development and skills integral to improved learning. Skills learned through the study of music help children become better students. Skills learned through music transfer to improve study skills, communication skills, and cognitive skills. Also, studies have shown that students involved in music classes are less likely to be disruptive, have better attendance, and are more likely to receive academic honors and awards. Studies have also shown that participation in school-based music education can increase student success. For example, in 2001 the College-Bound Seniors National Report showed that students with coursework in music performance and music appreciation scored notably higher on the SATs than students with no arts participation. Studies have shown that participation in music classes correlate with increased proficiency in mathematics and success in science. We must place a high value on music education. I am pleased to support this resolution supporting the importance of music education programs and urging that the benefits of music education should be available to every student.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a joint resolution to repeal outright the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment requires that no person who has served two terms or has served two years of another President's term be permitted to serve another term of office. The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result. Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future. A limitation on the terms that a President could serve was not fully discussed by the Founding Fathers. However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 72, recognized that one important benefit of not having term limits on the President would be: to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his conduct, to continue him in the station in order to prolong the utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration. After President George Washington retired after serving two terms, a custom emerged that was not broken until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms. The people chose President Roosevelt because they desired trusted and effective leadership. We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable. Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny. As the noted attorney and counsel to Presidents, Clark Clifford, said: I believe we denigrate ourselves as an enlightened people, and our political process as a whole, in imposing on ourselves still further disability to retain tested and trusted leadership. The Congress and the Judiciary are now and will remain free to utilize their own countervailing constitutional power to forestall any executive overreaching. Furthermore, a ``lame duck'' President serving in his second term is less effective dealing with the Congress and the bureaucracy than a President should be. I do not believe that the people want a popularly chosen President who will be weakened in a second term. The removal of the President from politics as prescribed by the 22nd Amendment has the effect of removing the President from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years. The 22nd Amendment reflects a fundamental distrust of the judgment of the American people. However, trust of the good sense of the people is one of the cornerstones of democracy. In 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.'' I believe the repeal of the 22nd Amendment will restore power to the people themselves and make our Constitution more democratic. 1 hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.