Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. You would have to ask CBO that.

Mr. THOMPSON. I wonder if we should not examine how much progress we have made and what the likelihood is of making the progress we are going to have to make. The 1993 budget arrangement, as I understand it, adds over $1 trillion to the debt. We have come to the point now where we are actually adds over $1 trillion to the debt. As I look at the figures, CBO figures, they indicate that the deficit is going to go up to $222 billion in 1998, and will go up in the year 2004 to $421 billion. The Senator rightfully points out that the deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down. But I look and see that they project in the year 2020 that the deficit will be 21 percent of GNP. That is going to be along the time, or shortly after the time, the baby boomers start retiring and the demographics overwhelm us.

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate that. The Senator from Maryland has had a long and distinguished career with these budgetary matters, and I want to have the benefit of his insight, because it is certainly different than the insight I have. I get the impression from the Senator that we made progress in 1993, and that is indicative of the fact that we can continue to do that and we will really have no big problem.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMPSON. Pardon me. The underlying question--we will set aside the previous question. I am sure others can address that in terms of when the vote must be taken or whether or not there is any leeway. My impression is that there is probably substantially more leeway under this amendment than the Senator believes that there is. I guess my underlying concern is, and question is the extent to which the Government has had success in fine-tuning the economy by fiscal policy? It seemed to me the Senator from Illinois was very persuasive, and the economists he quoted, of the proposition that we have not been very successful along those lines and that it, in fact, has had to do with monetary policy more than fiscal policy which would not be addressed by the concern of the Senator.

Mr. THOMPSON. Suppose----

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator believe that we have been too late and too little because of just a willful refusal to address it or perhaps because of Government's inability to fine tune the economy and to predict where it is going to be even a short place down the road?

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield on that question?

Mr. THOMPSON. Even though technically we would not know, even then.

Mr. THOMPSON. If the Senator will yield for a moment? Is it the Senator's understanding of the constitutional amendment proposed that, if early in the fiscal year a need was perceived to take such action as the Senator just described, that there must be an immediate vote with a 60 percent majority at that time? Or could that vote be taken at a subsequent time within the fiscal year?

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. As I understood the concern of the Senator from Maryland it is that for each action anywhere within the fiscal year we would have to get a three-fifths vote together immediately to take any action. However, I was under the impression that that was not the case; that subsequent to any action, any time within the fiscal year, Congress would have the option to ratify the action or perhaps take other measures that might counterbalance it. In other words, there would not be a succession of crises all along the way. The obligation would be to have a balance at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. To make sure I understand, in answer to the question of the Senator from Maryland as to how this amendment would operate, he is under the impression, apparently, that we would have difficulty in responding, as he suggested, because it might put us in a deficit situation. I am wondering whether or not, however, the Congress would have the opportunity subsequent to that action any time within that fiscal year to come up with a three-fifths vote and, in effect, ratify the previous action. In other words, does the Senator subscribe to the concern of the Senator from Maryland or is this an answer to that?

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I have followed with increasing distress the events surrounding the Smithsonian Institution's exhibit on the Enola Gay and the end of World War II. With each passing day we are made privy to revelations of an offensive and unrecognizable telling of the great struggle to protect the United States and free the world from the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Many of our citizens who have proudly worn the uniform of our military and offered their lives in the service of our Nation, have expressed justified outrage that the Nation's repository of collective memory should be so callously dismissive of the salient issues involved. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime were responsible for the unspeakable horror upon tens of millions of people in Europe. Indeed, today marks the 15th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, a striking event which reminds us of the tyranny of fascism. Imperial Japan launched a calculated attack on our Nation in the predawn light of December 7, 1941, and precipitated a war which saw excruciating suffering visited upon the people of Korea, Manchuria, and the military forces of the United States. And now, the institution which for over a century has served as the premier repository of our cultural, intellectual, and technological history has decided to portray the noble, titanic struggle against evil as nothing more that a power struggle against moral equivalents. I am appalled that our national history is being rewritten. I spoke against the original Enola Gay display at the Smithsonian which wrongly depicted our Nation's history during World War II. The second display resulted in more revisionism and more public concern and required congressional consternation to get it changed. The Smithsonian Institution has a magnificent track record of telling the history of our country with accuracy, compassion, and style. I call upon the Smithsonian Institution to work with veteran organizations to create an accurate, fair, and compelling display of which we all can be proud.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Ashcroft, will introduce a joint resolution to impose term limits on Members of Congress. This legislation will limit Members of the Senate to two terms and it will limit Members of the House to three terms. The time has come to pass this legislation. It is needed and it has the overwhelming support of the American people. In fact, never has there been an idea so popular that has received so little attention by the U.S. Congress. It is because term limits does not have to do with spending other people's tax money or regulating other people's lives as is the case with most legislation coming out of Congress. This provision, term limits, hits much closer to home. It calls for sacrifice or at least adjustment in the lives of ourselves. At least, with regard to those in Congress who see the Congress as a permanent career. It is time that the Congress put aside the personal interest that individual Members might have and respond to the will of the people, the good of the country, as well as the good of Congress as an institution. Because term limits is not about punishing Congress or denigrating the institution of Congress, although it has come to the point where many in our society would love to do so. On the contrary. Term limits would strengthen and elevate Congress in the eyes of the American people at a time when it is most needed. Today people feel alienated from their Government and have concluded that Congress does not have the will to deal with the tough challenges that face this country in the future. And who can disagree with that notion. Yesterday we passed out of the Judiciary Committee a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have concluded, as I think most others have, that passage of a balanced budget amendment is absolutely necessary if we are going to avoid bankrupting the next generation. The reason is that Congress doesn't have the political will to do what we all know is necessary. Therefore, we must resort to the straitjacket of a balanced budget amendment. It is a reflection upon us and upon our current system that such a straitjacket is needed. But constitutional amendments with regard to specific matters cannot indefinitely save us from ourselves. We must start developing the will that is necessary to face tough issues. To me that means that we must have more people coming into the system who view service in the U.S. Congress not as a permanent career but as an interruption to a career. I believe that term limits would more likely produce individuals who would take on the tough challenges, since their careers would not be at stake every time they did so. It would also draw them into the system and encourage more citizens to run for office since they would not automatically face the difficult uphill struggle of running against a well-entrenched, well- financed incumbent. There have been many Members who have served much longer than the limitations of this legislation would allow. A case can be made for the proposition that up until recently our current system has served us pretty well. There is no need to argue that point. However, different times and different circumstances require different measures. As the Federal Government has grown there has been a proliferation of special interest groups each with their demand on the Treasury and each holding a carrot and a stick for every Member of Congress. The carrot is political and financial support. And the stick is mobilizing of their forces in order to try to end a Member's career. So every time a Member takes a tough stand for the benefit of those yet unborn, who do not have votes, his career is on the line. For a Member whose entire future is based upon indefinite continued service, these forces are too often overwhelming. So we now have a $5 trillion debt and a deficit that will start to skyrocket again in 1998. Apparently, we have decided to let our children and grandchildren make the tough choices. That's not being responsible. Surely, we are better than that. We owe it to them to take the measures necessary to give us the best chance of putting ourselves in the position to deal with such problems. That is why we need term limits and I urge my colleagues support.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Ashcroft, will introduce a joint resolution to impose term limits on Members of Congress. This legislation will limit Members of the Senate to two terms and it will limit Members of the House to three terms. The time has come to pass this legislation. It is needed and it has the overwhelming support of the American people. In fact, never has there been an idea so popular that has received so little attention by the U.S. Congress. It is because term limits does not have to do with spending other people's tax money or regulating other people's lives as is the case with most legislation coming out of Congress. This provision, term limits, hits much closer to home. It calls for sacrifice or at least adjustment in the lives of ourselves. At least, with regard to those in Congress who see the Congress as a permanent career. It is time that the Congress put aside the personal interest that individual Members might have and respond to the will of the people, the good of the country, as well as the good of Congress as an institution. Because term limits is not about punishing Congress or denigrating the institution of Congress, although it has come to the point where many in our society would love to do so. On the contrary. Term limits would strengthen and elevate Congress in the eyes of the American people at a time when it is most needed. Today people feel alienated from their Government and have concluded that Congress does not have the will to deal with the tough challenges that face this country in the future. And who can disagree with that notion. Yesterday we passed out of the Judiciary Committee a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have concluded, as I think most others have, that passage of a balanced budget amendment is absolutely necessary if we are going to avoid bankrupting the next generation. The reason is that Congress doesn't have the political will to do what we all know is necessary. Therefore, we must resort to the straitjacket of a balanced budget amendment. It is a reflection upon us and upon our current system that such a straitjacket is needed. But constitutional amendments with regard to specific matters cannot indefinitely save us from ourselves. We must start developing the will that is necessary to face tough issues. To me that means that we must have more people coming into the system who view service in the U.S. Congress not as a permanent career but as an interruption to a career. I believe that term limits would more likely produce individuals who would take on the tough challenges, since their careers would not be at stake every time they did so. It would also draw them into the system and encourage more citizens to run for office since they would not automatically face the difficult uphill struggle of running against a well-entrenched, well- financed incumbent. There have been many Members who have served much longer than the limitations of this legislation would allow. A case can be made for the proposition that up until recently our current system has served us pretty well. There is no need to argue that point. However, different times and different circumstances require different measures. As the Federal Government has grown there has been a proliferation of special interest groups each with their demand on the Treasury and each holding a carrot and a stick for every Member of Congress. The carrot is political and financial support. And the stick is mobilizing of their forces in order to try to end a Member's career. So every time a Member takes a tough stand for the benefit of those yet unborn, who do not have votes, his career is on the line. For a Member whose entire future is based upon indefinite continued service, these forces are too often overwhelming. So we now have a $5 trillion debt and a deficit that will start to skyrocket again in 1998. Apparently, we have decided to let our children and grandchildren make the tough choices. That's not being responsible. Surely, we are better than that. We owe it to them to take the measures necessary to give us the best chance of putting ourselves in the position to deal with such problems. That is why we need term limits and I urge my colleagues support.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:15 a.m. today the Senate resume consideration of the Wellstone amendment, No. 5, and at that point Senator McConnell will be recognized to speak for not more than 10 minutes, to be followed by 20 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone. I further ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 a.m. the majority leader, or his designee, be recognized to make a motion to table the Wellstone amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that if the Wellstone amendment is not tabled, Senator Brown be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment. Mr. President, I have also been informed that Senator Coats will be here presently and would like to speak briefly on the Wellstone amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I rise in support of the bill. Mr. President, it has been my privilege to have been cochairman of a working group with Senator Grassley to try to pull together various parts of this legislation and help get it to the floor. I am fully cognizant of the fact that those of us who are newcomers to this legislative process, indeed, stand on the shoulders of giants. There have been so many who have done so much in this area: Senator Grassley, Senator Lieberman, Senator Glenn and others. I am delighted to be a part of that, and to be part of this strong bipartisan effort here in my first opportunity to address this body. Mr. President, Senators Grassley and Glenn have very aptly gone over the details of this legislation. It is indeed complex. It involves several pieces of complex litigation and applicability to those already existing laws. They have gone over this in detail. I will not. I would like to make some basic observations, however, starting with the proposition that the people spoke in a very loud voice in this last election. We can disagree as to what the people were saying in many respects, and we do. We have spent a lot of time trying to interpret the voice of the people in these last few weeks. However, I think there is one thing we cannot or should not disagree on. That is, in large part, they were saying that they want a change of the way we have done business in Washington, DC, Mr. President, specifically in the Congress of the United States. I cannot think of a better example of the way that we have been doing business in times past than this whole business of exempting Congress from the laws that other people have to live under. So today, I think that what this bill does is take a step in the right direction. It takes a step away from that and toward accountability. It stands for the basic proposition that those who make the laws in this country have to live under the laws that they make, as other citizens do. Those of us who have just come off the campaign trail, perhaps, have an additional insight into this matter. Those here with us today have spoken many times and labored in the vineyard for many years on this bill. Those of us on the other end of the spectrum have just come from being a part of campaigns where the people's voice was most recently heard. Mr. President, not only are the people in America for this legislation, the people in America demand this legislation. I would suggest that the people in my State of Tennessee, and I would guess the people across this Nation, wonder why it took so long to pass a proposition that seems to be so imbued in basic common sense. So perhaps that day has changed. I hope we are winning it now, as I speak. Mr. President, in the first place, it is the fair thing to do. That has been so aptly discussed and described by earlier speakers today. Second, Mr. President, I would like to bring up an additional point, and that is, in my observation, the people of this country, in many respects, are unfortunately losing confidence in our country's institutions. People more and more, I believe, Mr. President, are feeling alienated from their Government in this country. I think that that certainly has to do with the Congress of the United States. I believe that people more and more feel that the Congress has lost touch with people who work hard, pay their taxes, obey the laws and regulations, and are seldom heard from except when additional revenues are needed. So, I believe that this legislation is the first of many reforms that we will be discussing here in the next several days that will help restore the confidence that the people must have in the people's branch of Government, the Congress of the United States. We cannot stop this cynicism and this feeling of alienation, Mr. President, by ourselves. But the Congress of the United States can stop contributing to it. body will be a messenger of bad news to the American people if we do our job, if we are responsible. When we look at the economic picture down the road, when we look at the budgetary problems we will be facing in this country, we will not always have good news to bring to the American people. I believe the American people are up to it. However, I believe when we deliver that message, the American people must be able to trust the messenger, and I think, again, that is what we are about here today, the first step in that process. In addition to those reasons, I think that another pretty commonsense proposition applies, and that is that, if the Congress of the United States had to live under the laws they passed for everybody else, maybe we would not have so many laws and, thereby, maybe we would not have so many regulations. I think it has become entirely too easy in this country, in this Congress, to spend other people's money and regulate other people's lives. That is what I believe Congress has spent too much time on for too many years. I think for the first time under this legislation, Members of Congress, who understandably are concerned with cost, understandably are concerned with inconvenience and all of these other things, for the first time will start to realize the problems that people out in the country who have to live under these laws have experienced. And maybe, just maybe, we might want to, in the future, reconsider some of the laws that have already been passed and some of the regulations that have been promulgated pursuant to those laws. I think, in looking at this legislation, legislation of much detail, much work, that there are a couple basic criteria that I look for: No. 1, that it be comprehensive, and when I study this legislation, I see that every comparable law here is, indeed, applied to Congress. Second, there must be access to the court system. I examined this legislation and, indeed, we do have access to the court system. Those bringing actions against the officers and Members of Congress of the United States, indeed, have court access. It is not just the laws under this legislation that will apply to Congress but the regulations will also. Also, Congress under this legislation does not exempt itself from the numerical limitations that are afforded to small businesses which would exempt Congress from coverage under many of these laws. So I think we are moving in the right direction. Is the legislation perfect? I would say not. Could it go further? Indeed, I would like to see it go a bit further, but I think that we can revisit this at times in the future. I think the question of ultimate liability is something that perhaps needs to be revisited. Surely we can come up with a solution whereby Congressmen and Congresswomen and Members of the Senate are not faced with imminent bankruptcy constantly, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the taxpayers are not left with a bill that we might run up on them. I would think that, with the use of insurance and other measures, we could do better perhaps than that. But I think this is a strong--very strong--first step in the right direction. I wholeheartedly support it, not only because it is the right thing to do, but it will be to the benefit of the American people and, I believe, to the ultimate benefit primarily of the Congress of the United States. Thank you. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.