Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, on February 1 of this year, the Governor of Tennessee, the Honorable Don Sundquist, signed a proclamation stating that April 14-20, 1996, would be known in Tennessee as National Association of Retired Federal Employees Week. April 19 of this year marked the first anniversary of the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. A number of members from the Tennessee chapter of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees faithfully volunteered their time and energy to help the victims and the community of Oklahoma following this tragic event. This spirit of contribution continues to distinguish civil servants, retired and employed. It gives me great pleasure at this time to request of my colleagues to have printed in the Record a proclamation by the Governor of my State of Tennessee, the Honorable Don Sundquist. The proclamation follows: A Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Tennessee Whereas, the United States Civil Service Act of 1883 was signed into law by then President Chester A. Arthur, thereby creating the United States Civil Service System; and Whereas, the United States Civil Service Retirement System was created in 1920 and signed into law by then President Woodrow Wilson; and Whereas, virtually every state, county, and municipal civil service system has developed from the Civil Service Act; and Whereas, untold thousands of United States Civil Service employees have worked diligently, patriotically, silently, and with little notice to uphold the highest traditions and ideals of our country; and Whereas, thousands of Federal employees are retired in Tennessee and continue to devote inestimable time and effort toward the betterment of our communities and state; Now therefore, I, Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee, do hereby proclaim the week of April 14-20, 1966, as National Association of Retired Federal Employees Week in Tennessee and do urge all our citizens to join in this worthy observance.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, on February 1 of this year, the Governor of Tennessee, the Honorable Don Sundquist, signed a proclamation stating that this past week, April 17-22, 1995, would be known in Tennessee as National Association of Retired Federal Employees Week. Last week, on April 19, also marked the first anniversary of the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. A number of members from the Tennessee chapter to the National Association of Retired Federal Employees faithfully volunteered their time and energy to help the victims and the community in Oklahoma following this tragic event. This spirit of contribution continues to distinguish civil servants, retired and employed. It gives me great pleasure at this time to request the unanimous consent of my colleagues to have printed in the Record a proclamation by the Governor of my State of Tennessee, the Honorable Don Sundquist. A Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Tennessee Whereas, the United States Civil Service Act of 1883 was signed into law by then President Chester A. Arthur, thereby creating the United States Civil Service System; and Whereas, the United States Civil Service Retirement System was created in 1920 and signed into law by then President Woodrow Wilson; and Whereas, virtually every state, county, and municipal civil service system has developed from the Civil Service Act; and Whereas, untold thousands of United States Civil Service employees have worked diligently, patriotically, silently, and with little notice to uphold the highest traditions and ideas of our country; and Whereas, thousands of Federal employees are retired in Tennessee and continue to devote inestimable time and effort toward the betterment of our communities and state; Now therefore, I, Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee, do hereby proclaim the week of April 14-20, 1996, as National Association of Federal Employees Week in Tennessee and do urge all our citizens to join in this worthy observance.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Abraham be listed as cosponsor of amendments Nos. 3693, 3695, 3697, and 3699.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield the Senator from North Carolina 8\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. But is it not true that we often as a people place restrictions on ourselves as a part of our process? Is it not true that if 51 percent of the people or 60 percent of the people or 75 percent of the people want to abridge my speech, they cannot do that because of the Constitution, because of limitations we have placed on us, and specifically limitations we have placed on Congress, our elected representatives, that prohibit certain things regardless of how appropriate they may be? But it is a deliberate decision of the American people to restrict themselves. It is not that unusual. That is called the Bill of Rights and happens in other constitutional amendments.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, several of my colleagues have expressed a desire to speak on the term limits amendment. As they work their way to the floor, I would like to make a couple of comments. We have had a good debate in the last couple of days on term limits. It has taken about 50 years to get such a clear vote to the floor, and I can assure the President that it will not take another 50 years to get another vote on it. It is an idea that is not only demanded by the American people, but I think more and more the people in this body understand that we are incapable institutionally now of dealing with the problems facing this country under the current setup. One could not be anything but amazed and somewhat saddened to listen to that giant oak of a man, Senator Alan Simpson from Wyoming, yesterday as he recounted his experiences of three terms in this body. It was with a twinkle in his eye--because he always has a twinkle in his eye even under the most serious circumstances--but somewhat with a heavy heart as he is leaving this body after this year that he had to recount one more time what everyone in this body knows behind closed doors; that is, that we are bankrupting our country; that our Social Security system cannot survive as currently constituted; that Medicare will fall; that within a relatively few years a handful of programs and the interest on the national debt will take all of our revenues. He has seen this happen in his work on the entitlement commission, which is a bipartisan entitlement commission, and it comes to this same result, Democrats and Republicans alike. It was an almost unanimous report coming out of there saying basically that we are on the road to destruction for this country. We probably cannot do enough wrong over the next 2 or 3 years, or maybe even past that, to really run our ox totally in the ditch. But just as sure as I am standing here, catastrophe lies down the road, and we are all fiddling while Rome continues to burn. That is what this constitutional amendment for term limits is all about because we are putting reelection above all else. Reelection requires spending because that is the way we buy votes with taxpayers' own money--by giving it back to them a little bit at a time. That is the cruel, hard truth. I do not claim to be the first one that said it. In looking over some old documents in books, I ran across a quotation from Senator Danforth of Missouri who served in this body, who had the respect, I believe, of everyone on both sides of the aisle. As he left, he said these words: Deep down in our hearts, we believe that we have been accomplices to something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded the country to get ourselves elected. Those are harsh words spoken by a gentle man just as Senator Simpson did yesterday. All of the pundits and folks in the media who are only concerned about wins and losses and numbers of votes will have their day perhaps this time because we will have a vote this afternoon. But I can assure you that on down the road, as the consequences of our actions become clearer and clearer and clearer, the time will come with the success of a constitutional amendment for term limits. One of our distinguished colleagues took the floor yesterday opposing term limits, and it seems that he took the matter somewhat personally. He operated under the assumption that this amendment cannot possibly be anything other than an attack, a personal attack, on Members who have been here for a long time, and he seems to take it as such; it cannot be anything but based on an assumption that everybody that comes to the U.S. Congress is coming to line their own pockets. He said that he thought basically that was the assumption for the term limits movement--that we wanted to get even with somebody; that we wanted to punish somebody. That is not it, Mr. President. That is not it. Had he listened to the debate, listened to Senator Simpson, listened to Senator Brown, who served in the House and the Senate--and he is also leaving this body of his own volition to return to private life--Senator Ashcroft, and the other Members, I think he would have found a gentleness of approach, a gentleness of spirit, of sincerity, and a concern for the future of this country. This is not about getting even. This is not about besmirching the reputation of those who have served here before so gallantly. This is not about defiling the names of the giants who have walked these aisles. As I said, yesterday, I used to sit up here in the galleries, not much more than a small boy, and look at these giants whose shoulders we stand on today, and listened to their debates. Back in a time not too long ago when we had more time to debate, we had more time to reflect, the Government had not grown quite so large. We were still balancing the budget in this country as late as 1969. A good argument can be made that our system has worked pretty well now for a long period of time. The only problem is now that circumstances have changed. Our Founding Fathers never could have anticipated a professional Congress, but our Founding Fathers could anticipate changes in society and circumstances. They could not probably have ever guessed of the modern technological miracles we have today such as television, such as the fax machine, such as airplanes, and the vast numbers of things bringing people to Washington, DC, wanting more--wanting more programs, wanting more money, wanting a bigger share: ``Yes, I know you have to balance the budget but take a look at ours; this is different,'' which we get day in and day out, day in and day out. Over the past relatively few decades, it has resulted in a situation where, as I said before, a relatively few, a handful of programs are going to take all of the revenues that we have. Those who are concerned about children, there will be no money for children's programs. Those who are concerned about the elderly, there will be no money for that. Infrastructure, many thoughtful people in this country, with whom I agree, say that in some areas we ought to be spending more on infrastructure--roads and bridges are falling into disrepair; research and development, things that will make us stronger in the future, we are not spending enough on that. The reason, of course, is that there is no immediate political payoff. If you cannot send somebody a check in the mail before the next election, there is no immediate political payoff, and it comes right back around again. Our desire for constant reelection pushes the spending, pushes the growth of Government, and pushes the next generation into bankruptcy just as surely as I am standing here. That is what this is about, trying to come up with a system, adjusting under the Constitution as our Founding Fathers anticipated and as they provided for in the Constitution, a thoughtful deliberation, which is very difficult to get. It has to pass here by a two-thirds vote and then be sent to the States, and the States have 7 years to ratify it--a very long and difficult process. So it is not radical. It is a conservative process based on the principles of the Founding Fathers. So that is what it is about, trying to come up with a system, trying to adjust our system in a way so that we are better equipped to deal with the problems we do not seem to be able to deal with today. Would it solve all of our problems? Certainly not. Would we immediately start balancing the budget and would the prestige of Congress immediately change? Probably not. But we would be on the right path. If we try something long enough and keep getting the same results, is it not, when the stakes are so high, incumbent upon us to try something a little bit different? As much as most of us respect and revere this institution--and I do--it has never made any sense to me to struggle so hard and sacrifice so much to become a Member of a body that you do not respect. But despite our respect, we must recognize that among the American people it is not there anymore. It is not there the way it should be. So in our constant scramble to supposedly be responsive and give people what they want, that is, money, programs, expanded in many cases at 10 percent a year ad infinitum, which we all know cannot be sustained, we are creating the enmity of the American people at the same time, as if they were not aware of all of these wonderful things we were supposedly doing for them. It has been pointed out that we would lose the benefit of the services of many people who have served long terms in this body before, and that is true. There is no question but that term limits would deprive us of the services of some good people. But I urge, Mr. President, that as we continue this debate we refrain from personalizing this debate. This has nothing to do with myself. This has nothing to do with individual Members who are currently serving in this body. We will be lucky if they remember us 24 hours after we leave. This has to do with the institution. This has to do with the country. This has to do with the kind of institution that this country needs in order to carry us into the next century to cope with these terrible problems. Certainly we would lose some valuable experience, but in all candor the experience that we have has not shown or demonstrated the ability to keep us out of the fiscal and reputation quagmire we see in Congress today. We would lose some expertise, but what would we gain? We have 250 million people in this country. Under the current system where the incumbent has all of the advantages because of the spending I referred to and because of the reciprocation by those who have the money spent on them, usually in terms of campaign support, incumbents even in revolutionary years are reelected at the rate of 90 percent if they choose to stand for reelection. So we have a small fraction of 1 percent of the people who have a realistic chance, a realistic opportunity to serve in this body. Most good people now do not bother. If the system were opened up to these positions after 12 years, 12 years is by some measures not a great deal of time but by some measures it is not a short period of time either. It is much longer than George Washington served. It is longer than Thomas Jefferson served. They managed to make a name for themselves in less than 12 years. So it is not an onerous, punishing type of proposition. But look at what expertise and experience we would bring into the system if people knew these positions were going to be open from time to time. We would have people coming in from the private sector. We would have people with acknowledged experience in business and labor, in farming, in being a mother and a father to mix and mingle with those who have already been here for a while. Senator Frist, my colleague from Tennessee, pointed out the number of physicians we used to have in this body, a high percentage of physicians when the country was first founded, members of the clergy. You do not see that much anymore. I simply think that if we had the system open, it would encourage more people, knowing they could not stay forever when they came, that it would be not a career for them but an interruption to a career, and they would come in with that experience, bring it to bear on their public service and, while they were here, I think would be more likely to do what it would take to speak the plain truth even if they risked the voters getting angry at them and sending them home a little prematurely because they are going home anyway. It would not be a catastrophic condition. I believe we would see a little more courage, a little more ability to stand up to the tough challenges that this country is going to face. So just to attempt to refocus as we begin the morning--I see Senator Byrd is in the Chamber--I reiterate this is not about vindictiveness. It is not about personalities. It is not about quick fixes. It is a sincere effort on the part of many people around this country and in this body to think in terms of how best can we be equipped. The current system arguably has served us very well for a long period of time. But is it not incumbent upon us to make adjustments as we go along to better equip ourselves to cope with the problems that we are leaving the next generation? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate that. The Senator makes a very good point. But I would ask, what do we say to those people who go to the ballot box in their own States on a referendum and vote overwhelmingly to restrict themselves and say we choose for our own good reasons to restrict our Members as, what, 22 States have done? And now the Supreme Court, of course, has said you cannot do that. That is the one of the reasons we are here today. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the passage of H.R. 3103, the health insurance reform bill, occur at 2:15 today, and further that immediately following that vote, the Senate resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 21, with the vote on the motion to invoke cloture occurring at the hour of 3:45, with all debate prior to the vote equally divided in the usual form, for debate only. I understand this meets with the Democratic leader's approval.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grams and Senator Thurmond be listed as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 21.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THOMPSON

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

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

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 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. THOMPSON. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, to clarify, the term limits debate will resume again immediately after the health care vote, is that correct.

Mr. THOMPSON. We will have a vote on term limits at approximately 3:45.