Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator from North Carolina wish to be recognized?

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate the comments of my colleague, and I share his view this is something that ought to be considered deliberately and fully at the appropriate time. I think it is wise that we approach it from the standpoint of what is good for the country; that neither side try to make undue political points at the outset. Otherwise, we are not going to get anywhere. I simply say, I share my colleague's concern and desire to get anything up for a vote. It has taken 49 years to get the matter I am about to discuss up for a vote in this body, so I would like to turn to that now unless my colleague has any more comments.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would just say to my colleague that it is not I who was making it a partisan issue or saying it was a partisan issue. It has not been that in times past. It seems as if recently it has become a partisan issue. And I think the point still is well made that for a period of 2 years, both before and after the health care debate, certainly after the health care debate, when control of the Congress was well within the power of the other side, this could have been brought up and discussed. And the President did indicate that the minimum wage was not the way to go. As I understand it, the position is that there was other legislation which would obviate the need for the minimum wage, and some would say today there is other legislation that could obviate the need for the minimum wage. I am not even saying where this Senator would come down. I would like to listen to the debate on it. We have not had a chance to debate it. I just find two things that are happening very strange. First, is now it is an issue that is first and foremost in the minds of some of my colleagues on the other side. And, second, they seem to be the ones who are trying to make this a partisan issue. I say, let us consider it on its merits, both sides of the aisle, and do the right thing about it. But, if we start off in the very beginning making it a partisan issue and trying to draw lines and distinctions when the people on the other side of the aisle have sat and done nothing with regard to the minimum wage when they had it within their power to do so, we are not going to have much progress.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. Before I discuss the pending business, I might make one comment. It certainly seems that partisan accusations are still alive and well. I sit here and listen to Republican this and Republican that. Of course, we are in the middle of an election year, but it occurs to me that in a 2-year period when the President of the United States was a Democrat, the Democrats controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the House, we did not hear these calls on behalf of women and children and lower income workers. Such a bill was not introduced, and no committee hearings were held. In fact, the President indicated that was not the way to go. So now I am relieved that we have discovered women and children and the lower paid workers of this country and perhaps we can have a debate on it and do the right thing. But I would like to discuss something that should be of bipartisan concern.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Missouri. He has been a leader in this fight for a long time. His points are so well made. He mentioned the precedent set by George Washington, that after serving two terms, purportedly got on his horse and rode out of town never to return to Washington. People asked him to stay, but he knew better. He knew there were other people who were qualified to serve, and because he left when he did, other people were able to serve. He set a good example. The same example was set by Thomas Jefferson. He served two terms back when a President could serve for as long as they could continue getting elected. So this is the example that was set for us. And, of course, the people who were in the Congress at that time would not have thought of serving many, many years in Congress. They were citizen legislators who came to town to interrupt their career and not make a career. So I think that the Senator's point is very well made. I see my colleague from Colorado is in the Chamber. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am sorry that my friend from Arkansas thinks that this is such a partisan debate. This is my second day in the midst of this debate, and until a few minutes ago I had not known it was. If my colleague had been following closely, he would have heard a discussion by several Members of this body, some of whom are new to the body, some of whom have been here for a while, who are greatly concerned about the future of their country and are struggling for means and methods to do something about it. He would have heard that the bipartisan commission, which my friend from Arkansas is a member of, reported that in 2030 to bring the deficit down to its currents level, either all Federal taxes would have to be increased by 85 percent or all Federal spending programs would have to be cut in half. That by 2012, mandatory spending and interest and entitlements will exceed all Federal revenues, leaving no money for the Federal Government to spend on programs like education, law enforcement, research and development, national defense, health research and all the other programs he mentioned. By 2030, entitlement spending alone is expected to exceed all Federal revenue. That is what this debate is about. I find it unfortunate that certain Members who choose this particular occasion to exhibit courage to stand against the overwhelming will of the people will not address the true nature of this debate and what is happening to this country. It is equated with slavery. Term limits, I heard just a few minutes ago on this floor, being equated with slavery. That is how much some Members want to cling to their profession, as professional politicians. I heard that no amendment, no amendment ever is a good idea. I assume that would include the 13th amendment which abolished slavery. I hope we would have all been for that. I wish the strong stands on principle had resulted over the past few decades and some hope for the next generation, instead of bankruptcy and total loss by the American people in the confidence of the legislative branch of Government, which is exactly what we have today. It may not go anywhere because everybody is hunkered down in their offices, feeling confident that their colleagues, when it comes right down to it, will not vote for term limits. Yes, they can stand in the face of the will of 75 percent of the American people, because at a time when we rush to get the American people's opinion on everything and anything that comes across the horizon, in this particular case, we will stand firm against it as a matter of principle. Yes, we can be confident when it comes right down to it. We may not have the votes, because there is only one thing worse than risking the wrath of the American people on term limits. It is just one issue. That thing is actually putting your career in jeopardy. That is what it is. That is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. We can quote Alexander Hamilton, but Alexander Hamilton, that aristocrat, that Federalist, wanted lifetime tenure for Senators. So I can see why some of my colleagues might want to line up with him. This is not based on the assumption that Members of Congress and Members of the Senate are only interested in feathering their own nests. This is not a get-even strategy, and not something that is mean spirited to get at people. We all have Members whom we admire. As I said earlier, I sat in the lobby and watched, as a boy, what went on in this body. I had the opportunity to serve with Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina and Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee as I was counsel on the Watergate committee many years ago. I did not go through what it took to get here to become a member of a body that I had no respect for. What I am trying to do is to try to help get that body back to the level of esteem with the American people that the American people once had for that body. When my colleague points out that, once upon a time, we had no ethics rules, we could take money and do lectures and all these things; yet, 70 percent of the people approved of Congress. Now we have all these ethics rules and nobody approves of Congress. To me, that demonstrates that it is not matters of ethics rules that are concerning the American people. The low esteem they have for us has to do with other things. Those other things have to do with the fact that just like Senator Simpson said, we are bankrupting the Nation, Mr. President. We are bankrupting the Nation, and just because we get used to hearing it makes it no less true. Yet, we hear on and on and on again about these favorite programs that we cannot touch. No, I agree; this is the reason for the abysmal decline of confidence of the American people, barely above, according to some surveys, 12 percent approval--only law firms had lower at 11 percent approval--by the American people. We want to stand up and be proud of these last few decades and all the people who have served, proud of what we have done as an institution, and all the people who would not have been able to serve if we had not had the system that we have now. What about those 250 million people who have no hope of serving under the system that we have now? To my colleague, it may be inconsistent for his State to pass term limits and reelect him. To me, it is not. We have a closed system, whereby, regardless of the disgust the American people have with the Congress of the United States, or the distrust they have, or the feeling of revulsion, even, according to some of these surveys, we get reelected at a 90 percent rate. Does that have to do with some schizophrenia in the American people, or does it have to do with the fact that the incumbents get all the money? Most people with good judgment do not even try to break into a system like that. He mentioned my colleague from Arizona and myself as being a part of the system. I believe those were both open seats. If those seats had not been open and we knew we were going to have to go against a well-entrenched incumbent, the decision might have been different because the odds are not good. In the 1950's, a vote was taken on who the best five Senators in history were. Five Members were voted the best, and their portraits adorn the reception room of the Senate. These are Webster, Calhoun, Clay, La Follette, and Taft. Only one of these great Senators served more than two full terms--Senator La Follette. So let us not worry too much about the proposition that it takes 20 years in order to make an impact in this body. We know different. We know different. We heard yesterday from the Senator from Vermont and today from the Senator from Arkansas. The basic criticism, as I understand it, of this constitutional amendment--which they vigorously oppose--is that it does not go far enough. They would be for retroactivity; that this is not real term limits. They want real term limits, and they are concerned they are not going to get a vote on that. The reason we filled up the tree, of course, was the fact that the Senator from Arkansas and his colleagues wanted to add amendments totally unrelated to term limits so we would never get a true vote on term limits. Everybody knows that. Mr. President, I just urge, as this debate goes on, hopefully, we can shed a little more light on the subject than heat. Hopefully, we can keep it from being a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. Those young kids coming up today, and those yet to be born, are going to be Democrats and Republicans. It does not matter what party we are a member of or what party they are going to be members of. They are going to bear the consequences of the system we have now. We do not have the political will to do the things that we know we have to do to save this Nation from bankruptcy. We do not have the political will because, as Senator Simpson said, it is fear. It is stark fear of having to do something else for a living. We are willing to put our own professional careers ahead of the welfare of the next generation. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this is a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Members of Congress. It calls for a limitation of 12 years, 2 terms in the U.S. Senate; a limitation of 12 years, 6 terms in the House of Representatives. As I indicated, the last vote on term limitations in this body was in 1947, so it has taken about 49 years to get the second vote on this, not that anybody has been particularly pushing for it. I believe it is the first constitutional amendment for term limits to ever come out of committee. This had a full committee hearing. It passed out of the Judiciary Committee, and now, for the first time, a committee bill is on the floor ready for consideration. I think it is long overdue. In this body, it has been my observation that we pay as close attention as we can to what the American people want. We pay as close attention as we can to what our constituents want. We have offices all across the various States. We go to those offices, we listen, we get tallies on what people are calling in about, what people's concerns are. We go out and we pride ourselves, as elected Members, having town hall meetings, and we say a large part of the purpose of that is to listen, to see what is going on so we can be reflective of the opinions of the people that we represent. We run our campaigns on the same basis. We say, let us be your Representative and we will go up and listen to the people. Let us turn the Congress back to the people. We try to respond every time we get the feeling that 51 percent of our constituents want something. There is nothing more responsive than someone who has been elected to office, who feels his constituents are pressing for something, even by the barest of margins--except in one area. That is the area we are dealing with here today, term limits. We see poll after poll after poll, and we poll early and often. Sometimes it is like all that is happening around here is a rendition of those polls. My colleague from Massachusetts was talking about how many women favored minimum wage, how many Republicans, how many Democrats, all based on polling results. Who is ahead in the Presidential race? All these various issues. Who is for us and who is against us? By what margin? The distinction between last week, when 52 percent of the people were for this proposition, and the week before last when only 49 percent of the people were for this proposition, so we see a little movement there. There is extreme, extreme attention to the temperature of the American people and to our constituents, except about one thing, and that is term limits. Poll after poll indicates that upward of 75 percent of the American people favor term limits, and the overwhelming majority of States and localities that have had the opportunity to vote on term limits have come out in favor of term limits. Mr. President, 22 States have imposed term limits on themselves, even while other States were not doing so, saying: We think it is an idea whose time has come. It would be for the benefit of America for us to set the example, and we are willing to impose it on ourselves even though there is no obligation for other States to do so. Yet, even in light of this overwhelming majority of the American people who feel something is basically going wrong with their country and they are searching for something fundamental to do about it, we pay absolutely no attention to what is going on. We pay no attention to the overwhelming sentiment of the American people with regard to this one area. The case can be made that we ought to be more reflective in some cases, that we ought to be a little more isolated. This is supposed to be a deliberative body and sometimes we do not take enough time to really reflect on the important issues that are facing us. Sometimes we get too caught up in the number of bills that we can pass and the gamesmanship of what is going on in this town. But, why is this the only one area where this rule seems to apply to this body, and no other area? The answer, of course, is because in a Congress that busies itself in regulating other people's lives and purifying other institutions, other businesses, other individuals, that changes when it comes to doing something about ourselves, even something as innocuous as a 12-year term. This constitutional amendment would not even need to be ratified for 7 years. Then it would be prospective. It is the most minimal first step toward trying to put us in a position to face the 21st century that we could possibly think of. It probably would not affect anybody in this body right now, another 12 years on top of what they have already served, and on top of the 7 years it might take for ratification of the constitutional amendment. That is not exactly a drastic move, not exactly a revolutionary change. Yet we have all this difficulty even getting to first base. Let us talk about what this is not all about, because the detractors of term limits, in their scrambling around to try to come up with reasons why in this particular case the overwhelming majority of the American people are wrong, have set the terms of the debate for us, in many cases. What it is not about is vindictiveness. A lot of people are angry with the Congress of the United States, but this is not about vindictiveness. Life is too short for that. On the contrary, Mr. President, I really believe that imposing term limits on ourselves would do more to restore the dignity and the esteem of Congress with the American people than anything else. I pointed out the other day that columnist George Will wrote a book awhile back called ``Restoration,'' and it was about term limits. Most people would have a hard time seeing that connection until they got into it and read it. The point is, and a very valid point, I think, indeed, is that at the time our country was founded, people would line the streets and say, ``Long live Congress, long live Congress.'' Can you imagine what most of them would be saying today if they had a shot at making a comment at us parading down the street together? What has changed in that period of time? We have lost the respect of the American people. I believe this self-imposition is something that the people feel in their hearts is right and something that would, in one way, be to our own detriment--it might cut a few careers a few years short--but would do more to restore the faith of the United States people in the U.S. Congress than anything else. And that, Mr. President, is probably more important than anything else, because Congress is the message deliverer, and we have some tough messages to deliver to this country. A lot of it is not going to be well received. A lot of it is not being well received, but it is the truth, and it has to do with the future of our country and the things we need to do to make sure we fulfill that tacit understanding that each generation is supposed to have with the next, and that is, that we will leave this place a little better off than we found it. We are not fulfilling that commitment now. Another thing it is not about is simply changing new faces for old faces. There is nothing that inherently goes wrong with someone because they have been around a place for a while. There is nothing beneficial about changing a new face for an old face if a new face comes in with the same attitude as the old one had. That is not what it is all about. In fact, I am willing to concede that you could make a pretty good case for the proposition that for the majority of our history in this country, our system served us pretty well. We went through two world wars in this country, we went through a Civil War, we went through a Great Depression, and we had to dip into the till pretty deep sometimes, but we always came back and balanced our budget. We had a balanced budget as late as 1969 in this country. Our Founding Fathers did not address term limits. It never occurred to them that we would wind up with the professionalism and the careerism that we see today. So, for a long, long time, we could get by with what we had, because we did not have the culture of spending, we did not have the growth of Government and all the demands and pressures that are on us day in and day out to spend more and more and more. We did not have members so faced with the proposition, are we going to get along with people and get reelected by saying yes to any and every spending measure that comes down the pike, or are we going to risk our political future and say, ``We can't do things the same old way anymore; we can't necessarily grow each program at 10 percent a year anymore.'' Everybody in this town knows that--both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and both sides of the aisle. We know that, and yet we are afraid, basically, to say that. Or somebody says it and somebody else will get up and say they are trying to harm old people and trying to harm young people to get political advantage out of it for the next election. We get into that cycle: scare people momentarily. Sometimes it works, and yet the American people have this sense, this innate sense that something is really going wrong, something is not working right. So it is not about vindictiveness or even throwing the rascals out. My goodness, we in this body, anything that we are able to accomplish, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Many giants have been in this body. I hold this body in the highest esteem. I have reverence for this body. I have never understood why somebody would want to be part of an institution for which they did not have any respect. I used to come here as a very young man and sit up in the gallery and watch the great debates that would take place, even at that stage, and that has not been that long ago. People were talking about the issues. People seemed to have a little bit more time to deliberate. We were still right at the point where we were capable of balancing the budget. That time has changed. So what is it about? What it is about is not all the little things that you hear debated back and forth on the 6 o'clock news. If you cannot get it out in 15 or 20 seconds, it is going to be totally lost. It is not about new faces, it is not about experience, it is not about whether the lobbyists or the staffs are for it or against it. It is about dealing with the monumental problems that are facing this country, problems that are so great and so ingrained that many thoughtful people on both sides of the aisle think that it is already too far gone for us to do anything about. And it is about the fact that we are proving ourselves incapable under current circumstances of dealing with it. We are mortgaging our future, and it has to do with nothing more basic than our need to perpetuate ourselves and to avoid risk, which too often means avoiding the truth, and, therefore, we continue to go down the road that we know is bound to lead to disaster unless we make significant changes. What does this desire for reelection and staying do to us? It causes us to spend. It all comes down to the growth of Government and the culture of spending. This is not a partisan issue. You can pick your administration or you can pick who is in control of Congress--the House or the Senate--and go back for the last few decades, and I am willing to say that there is enough fault on either side; that neither side can take partisan advantage of this if you view it objectively. Every time someone stood up to speak the simple truth about the future and took their eyes for a few minutes off the next election and tried to do something that would make this country stronger for the future, the other side would invariably get up and take partisan advantage of it, scare people, go on television with 30-second ads, and whoever brought it up would cower back to their corner, not to be brought up again for a while. Mr. President, there is no simple solution to what I am talking about. It is fundamental. We have gotten ourselves into a deep ditch. We did not get there overnight, and we will not get ourselves out of it overnight, but we have to start examining possibilities that will put us in a position of doing something about it. How can we continue down this road? This proposal will not affect me personally either way and it will affect hardly any of the Members in this Congress, I would think. But if we had a system that concentrated on how best could we operate in the next century in order to solve these problems, I think that term limits would be a major, major step toward doing that. I believe if we open the system up so that people knew that these jobs would be open from time to time, in the first place you would draw more people into the system. Right now, unless you have access to millions of dollars--and usually through incumbency, which allows you to raise millions of dollars--it is not a participation that you can enjoy as an average citizen. We have 250 million citizens in this country, and one small fraction of 1 percent are all that have any realistic shot of ever setting foot on this floor. So bring more people in. What kind of motivation would those people have? If people were coming into the system knowing from day one that this could not be their career, that, hopefully, they have already had a career and, hopefully, they will have another one and this will be an interruption to a career and not a career in and of itself, would they be as frightened of the special interests? Would they be as frightened of the poll numbers? Would they be as frightened of the proposition that 51 percent of the people might get temporarily mad at them if they spoke the truth and said, ``You can have a 7 percent increase this year but you can't have 10 percent''? I think we would have people who would come in with a different agenda. I think we would have people who would come in with the idea, more likely--not universal, because nothing is--more likely that, I'm going to give a few years to my country. Just because it is 12 years does not mean you have to stay 12 years either. That is a maximum. Give a few years to my country the way they used to, the way they used to some years ago, and try to do the right thing. It is called public service. That is what it used to be. Citizens used to come in and do that. That is what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and that would go on. I think it is only a Congress which is peopled by individuals who have that attitude that is ever, ever going to get us out of the monumental straits we are in. By the year 2000, the net interest paid on the national debt will surpass defense spending and is projected to become the second largest Federal expenditure after Social Security. This is from the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform --the bipartisan commission. By 2012, unless appropriate policy changes are made, projected spending on entitlement programs and interest on the debt will grow so rapidly they will consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government--all tax revenues. In 2030, to bring the deficit down to the current level, the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform concluded that either all Federal taxes would have to be increased by 85 percent or all Federal spending programs would have to be cut in half. This bipartisan commission is telling you what is going to happen. Have you heard it anywhere else? By 2012, mandatory spending, interest, and entitlements will exceed all Federal revenues, leaving no money for the Federal Government to spend at its discretion on programs like education, law enforcement, research and development, national defense, and health research. By 2030, entitlement spending alone is projected to exceed all Federal revenues. We have had a philosophy now for several years in this town that a Senator is judged in large part by the amount of pork he can bring back to his State, not realizing that ultimately what is good for Tennessee is good for America and what is bad for America cannot be good for Tennessee or any other State. We have a proliferation of interest groups as we pass more and more laws and regulate more and more things. Those who are the objects of those laws and those who are being regulated naturally come to town to tell us what we are doing to them. When these programs are ingrained and people are used to receiving these moneys, there is no turning back. It is always more and more and more. You attend hearings for a month, and you will never hear anybody coming back in saying they want to give some money back to the Federal Government. It all goes the other way. We are now facing what one philosopher said a long time ago; that is, the ultimate test for any democracy is whether or not, when they discover they can pay themselves out of their own treasury, there can ever be any turning back. The other thing we need to address, along with the absolutely horrendous fiscal problem that lies for our children to keep up with, is the public cynicism. Out of all of this trying to be responsive, out of all of this poll taking, out of all this technology that we have to monitor the pulse so we can claim we are doing just exactly what the people want us to do, what do the people think about their Government? A very thoughtful gentleman by the name of Haynes Johnson wrote a book a year or so ago called ``Divided We Fall.'' He stated the following: For at least a decade, and in reality far longer, people at the bottom have grown increasingly alienated from those at the top, and especially from leaders who seem unable and often unwilling to address their concerns. Over the last generation, surveys on public alienation have tracked America's steadily eroding confidence in its leaders and in its institutions--a decline so uniform and so steep that it raises the most serious questions about public faith in the democratic system and therefore the ability of that system to function. Mr. President, that is serious stuff. Mr. Johnson went around the country talking to people, and spent a long time in researching this book. He pointed out a recent Harris poll indicating that, ``At the bottom in public esteem were law firms, with only 11 percent of Americans expressing great confidence in them. Barely above them was Congress at 12 percent.'' Thank God for law firms. He further states: Traditionally, American politicians are driven by the short-term approach. From city council members to members of Congress, emphasis is on the ``quick fix'' to complex problems and on claiming political credit for responding to immediate needs. The result, as we have seen, is postponement of decisions on major long-term issues. Thus, the real size of the budget deficit is masked. Genuine attempts to reduce it are put off to the next session of Congress--and the next and the next. Action is not taken today; it is always planned for tomorrow, to take place in what Washington policymakers, in typical semantic obfuscation, call ``the out years.'' The out years never quite arrive; they continue to lie beyond grasp. So the debts increase and the charade continues with each new congressional session. I ask my colleagues whether or not that sounds familiar. Finally, he states that: These are among the many reasons the political system remains under siege. A more elemental one involves the public conviction that the American political system has produced a generation of politicians in both parties who can't, or won't, tell the truth, because if they do, they will not win; and that lie permeates American politics. It is a sad situation, Mr. President, sad situation. For those of us who simply say, the status quo, we cannot make any fundamental changes, things are going great, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. So, Mr. President, I say let us give the States an opportunity. That is all we are doing with this constitutional amendment. Let us give the States an opportunity to address this issue and see whether or not the people really believe what the polls indicate that they do. I feel like that is the least we can do and is our foremost responsibility to see if we cannot better derive a system in the future that would allow us to cope with this unbelievable cynicism of the American people toward us and our clear inability to get a handle on problems that are going to be the ruination of the next generation. I yield the floor. [Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.]

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we are listening to a lot of rhetoric about crime and being tough on crime. But no matter how many cops we put on the street, no matter how many laws we pass, unless we have strong law enforcement efforts at the very top of the Justice Department and the very top of the executive branch of this Government, we are going to be letting out the back door whatever we are putting in our prison system in the front door. In fact, the policies of an administration are much more important than any other component of our law enforcement system. An administration's decisions as to who to prosecute, how effectively to prosecute, what cases to appeal, and what positions to take, affect thousands and thousands of cases. They affect not only the specific cases that are brought but maybe even can determine what cases are brought in the future. In other words, an administration needs to be strong in its law enforcement position. It needs to advocate the legitimate interests of the Federal Government, when Federal criminal statutes are involved. The President has engaged in strong law enforcement rhetoric. The President states that he is for the death penalty. But it is my unfortunate duty to report that the rhetoric does not match the action. I am specifically referring to the actions of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General in this country is the Government's lawyer. The Solicitor General advocates the Government's position before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Solicitor General is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Time after time, the position taken by the Solicitor General has been inconsistent with the rhetoric coming out of the White House. The Solicitor General, in case after case, has refused to appeal cases in which lower courts have overruled the Government, have overturned the defendant's convictions or have made it practically impossible that the defendant be prosecuted. Instead of appealing that case, even when in some decisions there are strong dissents saying, ``No, no, no, the Government is right here and the defendant is wrong,'' in case after case, the Solicitor General has taken the position of the defendant, essentially, and not appealed that case to at least give a higher court an opportunity to hold for the Government. When the Solicitor General makes a decision whether to appeal an adverse ruling, he is not in the position of a judge making an objective determination. The Solicitor General is supposed to be an advocate for us, an advocate for the people trying to enforce the law in this country. If there is a legitimate position to take in an important case--and these dissents, if nothing else, would indicate there would be in those cases--the Solicitor General is supposed to take that position and give the courts an opportunity to hold with the Government and against the defendant in those cases. We will have more to say about that later on next week with regard to some specific cases. But there is one particular point that is very relevant. It has to do with the recent bombing case that we all know about. It has to do with the so-called Cheely decision. There, a panel of the court, not even the full court, ruled that death penalties provided in two Federal statutes, essentially statutes prohibiting sending bombs through the mails, were unconstitutional. That is the ninth circuit decision; by a lower court. It was a panel of the full court that made that decision. The Solicitor General chose not to appeal to let the full court of the ninth circuit even have an opportunity to overrule the panel. So, as far as it stands out there, the death penalties contained in the mail bomb statutes are unconstitutional as far as that circuit is concerned. Obviously, that has some great relevance to what we are seeing now. We are all pleased that a suspect has been taken into custody with regard to the Unabomber case. Whether or not this man is charged with any of the three killings, or the terrorizing of many other people through a series of mail bombs, a jury hearing the Unabomber case should have the option of imposing the death penalty. But I fear that if he is charged in the Unabomber killings, the Justice Department may well have made it so that it is impossible for the jury or the court out there to impose the death penalty. The problem is that the most recent Unabomber killing occurred in California. California is in the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit decided the case I referred to a minute ago in 1994, called Cheely versus United States. Cheely had been convicted of murder. He and his coconspirators arranged for a mail bomb to be sent to the post office box of a key witness against them in a trial. The witness' father was killed when he opened the packaged bomb. Obviously, the facts are similar to the Unabomber case. Cheely was charged with interstate transport of an explosive that resulted in death and for death resulting from mailing nonmailable items. The Bush administration, which was in office at the time, asked for the death penalty. The ninth circuit panel ruled, however, that the death penalty statutes for mail bombings were unconstitutional. The ninth circuit held that the class of persons eligible for the death penalty under these statutes was unconstitutionally broad. Now mind you, a Carter-appointed judge on that same panel dissented from that decision. Given that President Clinton publicly supports the death penalty, it would seem reasonable to expect that the Justice Department would automatically have sought to appeal that sort of decision which struck down a Federal statute allowing the death penalty, with a strong dissent included. But the Solicitor General did not file a petition for rehearing by the full court. In an extraordinary move, however, the full ninth circuit ordered the parties to address whether an en banc hearing should be granted. Surprisingly, the Justice Department argued that the ninth circuit should not grant review in this case. Mr. President, the Justice Department wound up arguing against itself. Not so surprisingly, the ninth circuit then failed to grant rehearing. The Clinton Justice Department did not file an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing this past November. At that hearing, I asked Solicitor General Days why he did not file a rehearing petition in Cheely and in another case in another circuit. He indicated that although there was an argument to be raised on the other side, he did not think that the cases raised large enough concerns to justify asking for a rehearing. Of course, the constitutionality of many death sentences obtained on the basis of pre-1976 Federal statutes was at issue. He also indicated that he had discussed the case with Attorney General Reno. The effects of this are obvious, because if this man is charged under the Federal mail bomb statutes for the Unabomber killing in California, he cannot be given the death penalty. Had the Sacramento Federal building, and not the Oklahoma City Federal building, been bombed, the death penalty might not be available to be sought against Timothy McVeigh in Federal court. According to the Saturday Washington Post, Justice Department officials say they are ``pondering whether to bring charges against Koczynski,'' in the Unabomber case, ``initially in Sacramento, the site of the last bombing in April 1995, or in New Jersey,'' where a 1994 killing occurred. I have a good idea why they are pondering. Any other time, the prosecutor might bring charges where the most recent case occurred, and where the evidence is fresher. And, in fact, the Unabomber sent more bombs to California than anywhere else. But the case maybe cannot be brought there if the administration desires to seek the death penalty. I do not know if the New Jersey case is as strong as the California case. The third circuit, which includes New Jersey, has not issued opinions striking down the Federal death penalty statutes. I am deeply disturbed, however, that this administration has precluded one death penalty prosecution of the Unabomber, and now we will all have to live with the consequences. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to conduct three consecutive hearings during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 17, Thursday, April 18, and Friday, April 19, 1996, on the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 1997 for Indian programs and related budgetary issues from fiscal year 1996. The hearings will be held at 1:30 p.m. each day in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Frist, from Tennessee, because he made a very interesting point there, talking about the number of physicians who served in this body for the first 100 years. I think the number was 37. We were just talking about that. That was back when there were many fewer Members of the Senate. There were only 15 States by 1800 or so, so we only had about 30 Senators. Yet, a great number of them seem to have been physicians. I think you can say that about a lot of other professions back then, too. As time has gone on, that number has diminished. We have fewer and fewer people who have done anything except be in politics. So, again, I think he is a good example of the citizen legislator. He and I both came to the Senate together a little over a year ago, neither one of us having run for office before. We vowed, together, that we would do what we could to advance the concept of a citizen legislator and fight for term limits. As we said earlier, this is the first time in 49 years that we will have a vote on term limits in this body. I would like to just very briefly respond to a couple of the comments that the Senator from Vermont made earlier about term limits. The opponents of term limits, of course, are a little bit between a rock and a hard place. They have a tremendous burden to overcome. One of those burdens is the fact that, as this chart indicates here, 75 percent of the people--according to Luntz Research Co.--75 percent of the people are in support of term limits and only 16 percent of the people oppose it. So, what many of the opponents have done is tried their best to talk Members here into not supporting the term-limits concept. In the process, they have personalized the debate. They talk in terms of how it will affect this Member or how it will affect that Member or the majority leader's situation, the President pro tempore's situation, individual Members on both sides of the aisle. I think that points up a problem that we have in this body overall. It is a problem with this debate; that is, the personalizing of the debate, the personalizing of it. The point is that it does not matter how it affects individual Members. It does not matter that some Member might have served here for a long time and might be entitled to another two terms. What we are trying to do is fashion something that eventually has a chance of passing and becoming law. It is irrelevant as to what has gone on in the past. What is relevant is this country and what is relevant is this body as an institution as we go into the next century. If you want to make the argument that this would lower the quality of this body, that this would hurt the United States, then that is, I think, a valid argument. But to argue that a person cannot support term limits because he has already been here for awhile, I think that is an invalid argument. That is an attempt to label people as hypocrites. So the opponents of term limits say this is not real term limits. You have a proposition here that will allow two more terms, 12 years. That is going to be extremely difficult to get passed. It has taken 49 years to get another vote on it as it is. So we say, let us have something reasonable, regardless of the past. The system has served us pretty well in the past. We balanced the budget up to 1967. Let us concentrate on the future --another 12 years. But opponents of term limits say, no, that is not good enough. Let us fashion something that we know is impossible of getting passed, like making it retroactive. That will be consistent. That will be nonhypocritical. Perfection should not be the enemy of the good. The strategy is obvious on its face. The opponents of term limits are not interested in what they would call real term limits or genuine term limits. The opponents of term limits are interested in deflecting the debate from the future of this Nation onto individual Members and saying you cannot vote for term limits because you think that now we have dug ourselves into this hopeless ditch of debt, that you cannot vote for term limits for the future knowing it would be a few years before the ratification process would even have an opportunity to be completed. Then you have another 12 years. You cannot vote for that because you would be accused of being a hypocrite because you have been here for a while. That is a part of the ``me'' generation, Mr. President. We criticize our kids for a lot of things and ourselves as part of the ``me'' generation--me, me, me, self-centered. The same thing is true with this body--totally, totally consumed with ourselves as individuals and how things will affect us. Senator Jones here, we would have lost the benefit of his services if we had term limits. Well, there are millions of Mr. Joneses out there who might be Senator Joneses who might be better than Senator Jones. We have 250 million people in this country, and I do not even know what fraction of 1 percent have ever served in this body. Are we so self-centered and conceited and blinded that we think that this fraction of 1 percent are the only people qualified because we spent a few years up here spending other people's money and regulating other people's lives that we have the only expertise in America that qualifies us to sit here? Let us, as we go forward with this debate next week, not personalize this thing. Let us not personalize this debate. Let us not accuse people of being hypocrites. Let us not concentrate on the past. You can make an argument that in the past we did not need this. We fought two world wars, we went through a Great Depression, and we were always able to come back and balance the budget in short order. We balanced the budget up until 1969. Recently things have gotten out of hand with the growth of Government and the growth of spending, the proliferation of interest groups and the pressures on this body, of the desire for constant reelection, never having the will to say no to anybody, but always wanting to say, ``Yes, you can have this. We can increase this program at 10 percent a year because we want your vote and we want your financial support and we want this system of professional politicians that we have always had.'' It has gotten us into a quagmire that our kids will find it hopeless to dig themselves out of. We are bankrupting this country in short order. We all know it, and it constitutes criminal negligence if we do not do what we can about it. I have heard many, many times, and I heard again today, ``We have term limits; we have term limits, they are called elections.'' If you want to call the present system term limits, you are going to have to convince me that people have a decent shot at getting what they want from the present system, what they demand. If you are talking about electoral politics, unless you are an incumbent, you are not going to have access to the money to even run. We have millions of citizens out there who would like to serve and have the opportunity to serve, but they know, with all of the advantages of incumbency and all of the money that incumbency brings in terms of contributions, why bother? Why bother? They say, ``Well, there is a lot of turnover.'' That is for various reasons. Some people want to run for other offices; some people leave town one step ahead of the sheriff; some people want to go back and live in the real world. There are a lot of reasons for that. But the fact of the matter is, of those who want to stay, of those who run for reelection, about 90 percent still get reelected in the middle of all this turnover. So, the question is not what the turnover rate is. It goes up and down. The question is, What is the motivation of the overwhelming majority of the people who serve? If they ultimately decide to leave for whatever reason, or even maybe within their term for whatever reason, that still does not answer the question, what was their motivation while they were there? I firmly believe that if that motivation is, in large part, not totally, but in large part, simply staying and getting reelected and doing the things necessary to stay in office year in and year out, because the longer you stay the less touch you have with the real world and, in some cases, the less you feel like you will be able to do, and then age catches up with you perhaps and you become more and more desperate to stay and you are willing to do more and more things to stay--what is the motivation of those kind of people? The motivation of those kind of people to point out that ``We cannot increase your program, madam, at 10 percent this year. We maybe could increase it 6 or 7 percent. But your check might be a little less than what you were expecting it to be from the Federal Government.'' That is dangerous. That is dangerous, and we need people in this body who are willing to risk a little danger. That is what we do not have, and that is what this is all about. So as I say, next week we can get back on the central issue here: What is best going to equip this country to meet the challenges of the next century--as we, as sure as I am standing here, are bankrupting this country--not how it affects some individual Members. We will be lucky if we are remembered 24 hours after we leave. It does not have to do with that. So with that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. He has been a leader in this effort for some time and a leader before I got here. I would like to refer again to the thought that he expressed, that term limits would not diminish this institution; it would enhance the institution, going back to the proposition of restoration, and restoring it. Mr. Will pointed out in his book that back when the country was founded, people would line the streets and say, ``Long live Congress, long live Congress.'' Can you imagine someone--anyone--much less lining the streets, today saying ``Long live Congress''? I think this would do more to enhance the U.S. Congress in the eyes of the American people, make it a part of them, and open it up for them. It would give the 250 million people in this country--we have 250 million. They say, ``My goodness, if we had term limits, we would not have had Senator Jones here for all of these years. We all acknowledge that our Republic would surely have fallen if we had not had Senator Jones.'' But we have 250 million people. How many potentially wonderful contributors to our society are there out there, if we open up that system for them and let them compete in the political marketplace without having to overcome the insurmountable odds and money that our system has thrown in their way? I see my colleague from Missouri, whom I am proud to say I have walked shoulder to shoulder with through this process. He and I have been here. No one has worked harder in this area. I see he is present. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to take up once again the business before the Chamber, the constitutional amendment on term limits. This amendment would provide for a limitation of 12 years for Members of the U.S. Senate and 12 years for the House of Representatives. It is a constitutional amendment which will require two-thirds vote of this body and then ratification by the States. It is prospective in nature. That is what we are about here today. It has been a long time coming. I believe this is the first time that a constitutional term limits amendment has worked its way through the committee system. I was proud to be able to sponsor the amendment coming out of the Judiciary Committee, and now we find it finally on the floor of the U.S. Senate for the first time in history. I appreciate the leadership and the assistance of the majority leader in seeing that this has come about. There was a term limits vote in 1947, as I read my history. I think term limits got one vote at that time. So it has been right at 50 years now since there has been any vote at all on the issue of term limits. I find that absolutely remarkable because poll after poll after poll indicates that upward of 70 to 75 percent of the people in this country support term limits. I cannot think of anything else that enjoys such broad popular support that cannot even find its way on to the floor, much less get passed, before the Congress. In a day and time when we are all hooked up with all kinds of electronic devices in order to monitor the pulse of the American people almost on an hourly basis--some say too much--there is such little time we have to reflect and deliberate, but that is what we do. At a time when we take public opinion polls, it looks like about every couple of hours in this country, in order to test what the people want, and at a time when we pick up the fact that 50 to 55 percent of the people want something in this country and we seem to jump through hoops around here in order to get it done and be responsive to the American people, we find that when it comes to term limits, although an overwhelming majority of people consistently say that they want this, it takes 50 years to even get it to a vote in the U.S. Senate. I find that somewhat remarkable. Obviously, the reason is because in our daily lives here in regulating other people's lives and in spending other people's moneys, when it comes to us, when it comes to maybe short-circuiting what would otherwise be a lifetime political career, we turn the other way and we are not quite as interested in what the majority of the people want, or we come up with ingenious arguments why in this particular case we must show our independence and not give the majority of the people what they want. We cannot say no to any kind of spending program that would balance our budget. But in this particular instance, we need to show our independence because what choice do we have if we accede to the wishes of the people? We would only have an additional 12 years in the U.S. Senate--an additional 12 years--as if this were an onerous proposition. It is not an onerous proposition. It is not revolutionary. It is something that was contemplated by our Founding Fathers, who knew that from time to time circumstances would change and who provided in the Constitution a way to address those changing circumstances. Circumstances have indeed changed, and we will address those and why we need this particular amendment. Let us talk for a moment about what the effort to get the constitutional amendment for term limits on to the floor is not all about. It is not about simply changing new faces for old faces. It is not about simply replacing people for the sake of replacing people. It is not because of any vindictiveness because we are mad at Congress, as a lot of people are, and that we want to punish somebody. It is not about that at all. As a matter of fact, it is about just the opposite. It is about making Congress more credible with the American people. It is about enhancing the stature of Congress. Syndicated columnist George Will wrote a book a few years ago entitled ``Restoration.'' It was about term limits and the need for term limits. He is an individual who, he says, opposed term limits for many, many years; and for a variety of reasons he came to believe that this was perhaps the only way that we would be able to work our way out of our problems that we are getting deeper and deeper into in this country. But why would he call his book on term limits ``Restoration''? It is because he believes that term limits would be something that would restore and enhance the credibility and the stature of the U.S. Congress. Indeed, how could it get much lower? Poll after poll after poll, again, indicates that after a brief blip after this last election, we are back down there in the view of public opinion, the American people, where we have been for so long that is abysmally low. People have less and less confidence in their Government, have less and less confidence in their Congress. It is Mr. Will's view, and it is my view, that if we had more of a system that was contemplated by our Founding Fathers who could not have dreamed of a professional legislature at that time, that if we went back more to a citizen legislature type approach, that people would feel closer to their Government and have more respect for it. I mention our Founding Fathers. I was reading recently, again, after George Washington served two terms, they beseeched him to stay on. ``How can we lose the services of the father of our country? Surely the republic will fall if George Washington does not stay on past his two terms.'' George Washington knew better. That is why he goes down into the history books in the manner that he has and is viewed in the manner that he is viewed. He knew better. He got on his horse, road out of town, and history records that he never even set foot back in Washington, DC. The same thing with Thomas Jefferson after serving two terms. Surely--surely--we need Jefferson to run again because we know what kind of respect and admiration we have for him, and back then also. He took his slings and arrows by his opponents and the press at the time, but he was greatly admired and respected. He, too, knew it would be a bad precedent. We are talking about the Presidency in those cases, but it was before term limits, which, of course, we have on the Presidency. People who fight most vigorously against term limits for Members of Congress, who are usually Members of Congress, seem to be quite content to keep the term limits on the Presidency, which we have. But at a time before we had the term limits on the Presidency, those two great men saw the wisdom of serving a couple of terms and then moving on. History will reflect that we have had some pretty good ones to follow them, also, who would not have been serving at the time that they served had the others chosen to stay. So that is what it is not about. It is not about change for change's sake. There is nothing that inherently goes wrong with an individual when he reaches a certain age or you have served in Congress for a certain period of time. There is no biological changes that necessarily take place. He does not become evil because of that service. We are talking about doing something that will enhance the stature and effectiveness of the Congress. What it is about is more than the individual Members who serve in this body or who have ever served in this body. It is no reflection on them. It is about us as an institution, and it is about us as a nation and about our future and about equipping ourselves in a way that will more effectively allow us to deal with what some believe to be insurmountable problems that we already have, fundamental problems that we really show no indication that we are capable of solving. Mr. President, it is no less true that we are bankrupting this Nation simply because it is heard so often. But it has happened. We know it is happening. We know that the demographics are catching up with us. We know that when the baby boomers start retiring, it is going to wreak havoc on many of our social programs. We know that Social Security is in dire jeopardy. We know that Medicare is in dire jeopardy. Yet we cannot get to first base in doing anything about it. We continue, after this so-called congressional revolution when my party was rewarded at the polls and we were all brought in, even after all of that, we have found that as an institution--I will even include the Presidency in that certainly--as a working government we cannot get to first base in solving the most dire fiscal problem that this country has ever faced. We probably cannot do enough wrong to mess things up in the next few years. We will be OK. Most of us will be out of office and drawing our pensions, and we will once again have handed the problem over to the next generation. But down the road, as surely as I am standing here, we know the demographers tell us that we cannot continue down the road that we are on. It is just that simple. Everybody in Washington, DC, behind closed doors will acknowledge that. Doing something about it, of course, is the hard part. We have not shown any indication that we can really do anything about it. We are talking about a 7-year balanced budget plan. The Republicans have tried mightily to get that done. We passed in the Senate for the first time in decades a balanced budget. The President vetoed it. But even if we had that plan according to what we wanted, at the end of the 7 years, our country would still be looking at a $6 trillion debt, a $6 trillion debt. We talk about addressing this problem to the extent that we claim to be addressing it with the assumption there are not going to be any recessions and not going to be any international conflicts and not going to be all the things that always happen--that always happen. What are we doing to try to get to the first step? We are arguing over the division between entitlement spending and discretionary spending. Nobody really wants to do anything about entitlement spending because where the problem is is also where the votes are. It is tough to tell people we cannot continue to do things the same old way and we cannot continue to increase every year at the rate of 10 percent. Everybody knows it. We do not have the ability to tell that to anybody, because we are afraid to, because we want to get reelected, and we want the campaign contributions that come from it. The plans that have been laid on the table, and I will be as bipartisan as I can about this, all the plans that have been laid on the table back end load the problem. The President's plan does it more than any of the rest of them, but all of them back end load the problem. So when we come up with a so-called balanced budget, all we are doing is putting numbers down on a piece of paper, hoping that years later some future Congress will have the guts to do what we do not have the guts to do, and we claim we will slash discretionary spending in the outyears, after we are out of office. That is what will happen. That is the way we balance the budget. That is hogwash. It will not happen and everybody knows it is not going to happen. That is the best-case scenario. That is the best-case scenario. If we made that initial downpayment, that is what we would be doing. It is not really a downpayment. If it really were a downpayment, we would still be looking at very bleak fiscal circumstances on down the road. That is not even to address the need that we have in so many other areas. We talk about--we who call ourselves conservatives--talk about the need to reduce the rate of growth of some of these spending programs which has surely got to be done--and will be done, also, one way or another or we will monetize the debt and inflate our way out of it and become a second-rate country. What we do not talk about sometimes is the fact that we need to spend more in certain areas in terms of our infrastructure, in terms of research and development, things of that nature. What do those things have in common that the things I have been talking about do not? It has to do with the future. There is no immediate payoff for infrastructure and research and development and things that will make our industry stronger, policies that will make our industry stronger down the road. There is no immediate political payoff for that. It is difficult to explain that to people. What is not difficult to explain is a check in the mail 10 percent more than the check you got in the mail last year. That is what is driving the process. That is why we are in the position we are in. So not only are the demographics going to catch up with us as far as our spending problems are concerned, we are going--without taking care of some basic fundamental needs that any strong nation has, because all this money is being eaten up with regard to a handful of programs which, with the increased interest on the national debt, is facing us with catastrophic circumstances. You will hear the debate now that the deficit has gone down a little bit. Well, it does not make any difference if you look down the road just a little, if we look past our nose--and that is about as long range as we look or plan anymore in this country. When our competitors think in terms of decades, we think in terms of the next election and next quarterly statement if we are a corporation. If we look past our nose, the temporary ups and downs, the demographics and what is built into the system is simply going to kill us. It cannot be sustained. That is what term limits is about. You wonder maybe where this comes in, that and what term limits is all about. It is not about kicking a bunch of people out. It is a system, a system. What kind of a system is it that produced what I just described? What kind of a system is it that we have that has produced those circumstances? In the first place, it is not a system that we have had since the history of the country. I mentioned changed circumstances and our constitutional framework being such and our Founding Fathers being wise enough to see that there would be times and circumstances when we would have to adjust our underlying document to meet those changing circumstances. You look back in the days of the Founding Fathers and look at the challenges that they faced, it seems to me like, in many cases, or in most cases, it was more of an intellectual challenge. You needed people who understood history. You needed people who knew about other governments. You needed people who understood human nature. You needed some philosophers. Yes, you even needed some lawyers and people who understood Constitutions and how laws were written. But you needed those intellectual traits that really laid down the most noble document in the history of the world as far as what secular man has produced. We got it. Then it seems to me that as time came along in the 1930's and the 1940's, new challenges were presented. We had the Great Depression, which my mother tells me about. We had a major war, a world war. At that time we needed inspiration. We needed programs. We need the Government to do the things that the Government maybe had not done before. We needed unifying actions. That was the era in the beginning of what some referred to as the ``rhetorical Presidency,'' when FDR-- and Woodrow Wilson was a great advocate of this--we needed somebody who could rally the people and get them together to a concentrated course of action. That was needed during those times. Those circumstances have changed now. We do not need what we needed before because we are not faced with what we were faced with before. In many cases, we have to go back and revisit what we have already done, because since those times the very nature of our Government and society has changed. We, as an institution, are less well equipped to deal with the problems than we have ever been before. Our basic problem now is not one of intellectual leadership. It is not one of rhetorical leadership. Our problem now is the lack of will, the lack of will to do what we know that somebody, either us or our successors, have to do. We do not have the lack of will. Why is it we are in such a system now? I think it is because of many reasons. Look at what has happened since then--the growth of Government. Government has grown mightily since then. That means spending, the cult of spending, the political reward you get from bribing taxpayers with their own money. It sounds pretty harsh, but that is essentially what it amounts to. No politician was ever turned out of office simply because he said yes to somebody, that, yes, they could have whatever they wanted. That is kind of what we feel like we are there to do, is to listen to people who want money, want programs, want increases and want more and respond to that. It is the cult of spending. Because of our desire not to ever want to say no to anybody, because that could endanger our career, we more likely than thought, ``Go along with it.'' That is a shorthand for the basic problem we have. There are other factors--the overall philosophy that you need somebody in the Senate, for example, who has been around for a long time. The idea is you come up here and you stay as long as you can and then at the end of the day you are in a position to get more pork for your State than anybody else. That is the philosophy that still holds over to this day. You do not worry about the Nation necessarily; it will take care of itself. For a long time, the Nation did take care of itself. It was like one old Texan said one time, ``I have watched those folks from up North talk about this. They do not do it better than we do, and every time they get a ham, I'm going to get a hog.'' That is the way he worked his career, and he got a lot of hogs. That might have been all right for a while. But now, what is good for the Nation is good for the State; what is bad for the Nation is bad for the State. Nothing is going to be good for any particular State if it is bad for the Nation. We all live in the same world. We are bringing kids up in the same world. They are all going to be suffering from the consequences of what we are doing right now. But usually, again, getting back to spending, they are the ones that are going to be paying 80 percent tax rates and paying astronomical interest rates when they go to buy their first home or automobile. They are the ones who are going to suffer the consequences. It is not going to make any difference to them whether or not we got an extra road built somewhere. The interest groups have proliferated every year, and more and more come to town. People have a right to come and petition their Government. I have never been one of those who criticize people who come in and petition their Government, whether they do it personally or through a hired lobbyist. If we are going to pass laws that affect people's lives, we have to expect people to come in and tell us what effect that is going to have. But we have passed so many laws, regulating so many aspects of life in America and business in America, and everybody now has a stake up here, and they interpret that stake in terms of how much more can they get from up here. It is not a matter of concentrating on making the pie bigger anymore, it is a matter of making sure you get a bigger share of the pie, which means taking it away from somebody else. That is the fight up here. As the interest groups grow and become more powerful, they have a carrot and a stick for every Member of Congress. The carrot is financing them. The stick is working against them for their reelection. Those are powerful motivations, all under pressure and going toward the ultimate result of more and more spending--more and more spending. Someone said one time that the ultimate test of a democracy was whether or not, once the people learn they can pay themselves out of their own treasury, they will never have interest rates. That is the question we are going to have to answer in this debate. I am not sure that the answer is looking all that good. So what will term limits do? It is no panacea, we know that. There is no short-term solution. This constitutional amendment process in and of itself certainly is not a short-term process. But what I think it will do is better give us a chance to deal with these problems, to ameliorate the influence of the cult of spending that we have all fallen into in this town. In the first place, it will open up the process. People will know that certain positions will be open from time to time, and if they ever want to serve their country a little bit and come up here and look after the interests of their children and do the right thing, they do not have to go up against some well-entrenched incumbent who has all the money he can possibly use because that is where the money flows, but it is going to be open. They say, yes, I have done something with my life already. I have a career, I am a small business woman, or I am a farmer, or I am a professional person. But I can give a few years, knowing that I will be coming back home before too long. I can give a few years of service. What is the motivation? What is going to be the motivation of that person to go build a political career and be timid and say, yes, and spend and spend? No, he cannot, because after a certain number of years, under this constitutional amendment, he is out. Two terms in the Senate. I ask my colleagues, most of whom are going to oppose me on this amendment, I regret to say, what it would be like to run or serve 6 years in the U.S. Senate, knowing you are not going to have to raise any more money, and knowing that you are not going to have to worry about being turned out of office. Some people do that anyway--under self-imposed circumstances. I have committed to do that. I do not say that that is the only way to go. It is not the only way to go. I admire my colleagues who say let us change the system, including me, but until then I am not going to do it myself. I do not personally have any desire to stay past that allotted amount of time. That is my own personal decision. I am looking forward to the time when I can spend all of my time doing what the people sent me up here to do. That is the kind of system that we would have under term limits. A third of the people, at all times, in this body would be under those circumstances. Would that not be more likely to produce people who would be willing to take some risks in leveling with the American people, and saying we cannot consume any more right now because we are taking it from the unborn, we are taking it from your daughter's unborn child, because they will be the ones that have to pay the consequences. So we cannot have that right now. How many times have you heard anybody say that recently? I think if we had a different kind of system, we would be more likely to see that on a consistent basis. I think we would be more likely to do something about the cynicism that we have seen, which has been too prevalent for too many years. I see other colleagues on the floor, Mr. President. So at this time, I will relinquish the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I will yield the floor. I note my colleague from Montana seeking recognition, and I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate is now considering the constitutional amendment regarding congressional term limits. I have just sent to the desk a series of amendments to the joint resolution, the effect of which is to ensure that the debate remains on the issue of congressional term limits. If the amendment process had not been completed, it was the fear of this Senator and many others on this side of the aisle that other Members were intending to offer an amendment which would not be relevant to the pending term limits legislation. With the so-called amendment tree now filled, it is the hope of this Senator that the debate will now stay focused on this very important legislation. It is also the understanding of this Senator that later today, the majority leader will file a cloture motion on the joint resolution which will allow for a cloture vote on Tuesday, April 23, 1996. I appreciate the cooperation and support of the majority leader for bringing this issue before the Senate in such a timely manner, and I look forward to a vigorous debate today, Monday and Tuesday.

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

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send a first-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMPSON. I now send a motion to recommit the joint resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.