[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      IN OPPOSITION TO TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Gerald Seib, a conservative columnist for 
the Wall Street Journal, wrote this a few days ago about the issue of 
term limits:

       Their anger at seemingly permanent Democratic congressional 
     rule aside, Republicans ought to think hard about whether 
     they want to identify themselves with an idea that is at 
     heart both undemocratic and disdainful of citizens' ability 
     to make sensible decisions.

  As most people here know, I am one of the most conservative Members 
of this body.
  But one of the very few issues I go off the conservative reservation 
is on the issue of term limits.
  I agree with Mr. Seib: They are undemocratic--with a small ``d''.
  I believe they are unconstitutional, although I am sure it will be 
easy to find some judges who do not like politicians who will gleefully 
rule in their favor.
  But one should keep in mind that our Founding Fathers did not put 
term limits in our Constitution.
  Further, I believe that new talks of limits like three terms, or 6 
years, in the House, and two terms, or 12 years in the Senate would be 
totally unfair and might possibly be in violation of the equal 
protection clause of the Constitution.
  Why should a person have the right to be elected to 12 years in the 
Senate, but only 6 in the House?
  But the main reason I am against term limits is not constitutional.
  First and foremost, term limits correct a problem that does not 
exist.
  Over 60 percent of the House was new between 1980 and 1992. Then 110 
new members were elected on top of that in 1992.
  I am told that well over half of the House will have been elected 
just since 1990, after the 1994 elections.
  There is so much turnover going on here now that a lawyer from 
Knoxville got on an elevator with me here a few months ago, and the 
elevator operator said to him, ``Hello, Congressman.''
  There is even greater turnover in the State legislatures around the 
Nation.
  While there is tremendous turnover going on in elective offices all 
over the country, there is almost no turnover in the bureaucracy.
  And Federal judges are given lifetime jobs without ever having to go 
before the voters.
  Already, we have a Government that is more of, by and for the 
bureaucrats than it is of, by, and for the people.
  If you want to strengthen the bureaucracy, then the best way would be 
through term limits, which would weaken elected officials, and 
strengthen or increase the power of unelected bureaucrats.
  Actually, we already have term limits--they are called elections.
  Members of this body get terms of only 2 years. We face the voters 
every other year.
  If the people want to get rid of us, they can do so very easily.
  That is why so many of us are out working nights, weekends, and 
holidays, seeing our people.
  On the other hand, Federal bureaucrats are so protected by the Civil 
Service System, they can keep their jobs almost no matter how little 
they do or how they treat the people.

  I know that term limits are very popular, but if the people establish 
term limits for their elected officials, the very people in Government 
over which they already have the most control, then they had better 
come in with term limits for everybody--bureaucrats, judges, and 
everyone else who works for the Government, or we will greatly weaken 
our balance of power which has served this Nation so well.
  I certainly understand the peoples' anger at a big, bloated, 
wasteful, and arrogant Federal Government.
  I feel this anger myself.
  But you change nothing through an arbitary gimmick like term limits, 
which by the way would be very harmful to our smaller, less-populous 
States.
  You do not change anything by replacing a liberal with a liberal.
  The only way to really change this Nation is by electing more 
conservatives to the Congress, and replacing the big Government 
liberals who are slowly destroying our freedom, whether it is replacing 
a liberal who has been in for 2 years or 20 years.
  I know it is very easy to demagogue an issue like this, but I 
repeat--term limits correct a problem that does not exist, because 
there already has been unbelievable record turnover going on in the 
Congress and other elected offices for the last several years.
  I believe my fellow conservatives would be the most disappointed by 
term limits. A true conservative believes in the people, and not in the 
Government. And we should allow the people to elect whomever they want 
to public office.
  Anyone who has worked at a job--any job--for more than 10 or 12 years 
and feels they are still doing a good job should be opposed to term 
limits. They certainly would not want them applied to their jobs.
  I close by repeating the words of Gerald Seib:

       Their anger at seemingly permanent Democratic congressional 
     rule aside, Republicans ought to think hard about whether 
     they want to identify themselves with an idea that is at 
     heart both undemocratic and disdainful of citizens' ability 
     to make sensible decisions.

  Those who are true conservatives, and who believe deeply in our 
Constitution and in the American form of democracy, will strongly 
oppose a radical idea like term limits.

                          ____________________