[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H2726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I want to call the attention of our 
colleagues to the fact that 1 week from today the U.S. House of 
Representatives will have a historic first. We will have an opportunity 
for the first time in the history of this country to vote on a term 
limits constitutional amendment, an amendment that would limit the 
length of time that Members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate may 
serve in these two august bodies.
  This amendment proposal will have many variations to be voted on out 
here, and there are certain preferences that some of us have as to one 
version or another. I know for one, I have been working for years in an 
effort to get a 12-year limit on both the House and the Senate. Six 2-
year terms in the House and two 6-year terms in the Senate. Actually, I 
prefer that we lengthen the terms in the House and have three 4-year 
terms.
  Whatever the debate may be over the number of years, the important 
bottom line is that we move along with the process and get a final 
passage vote that gets us to 290 and makes a bold statement out here.
  The reason why we need term limits seems apparent to most people. A 
record 77 percent of the American people favor term limits. Sometimes 
the poll has been as high as 80 and other times as low as 70. But that 
is strong support for term limits which has been there for years and 
years and years.
  What the American people have seen, that many in Congress have not 
admitted to in recent years, is the fact that we really have become 
very career-oriented in this body, in the House particularly but, to a 
large extent in the Senate as well.
  Members here are serving full time, a way that the Founding Fathers 
would not have envisioned. A year-round Congress is something, again, 
that the Founding Fathers had not envisioned.
  Back years ago, we had a situation where Members came here for a very 
brief period of time at the beginning of the year, as in Senate 
legislatures, and serve for a couple of months, go home, and not come 
back again for another year. At the same time, Members served rarely 
more than two terms as Congressmen in the House and they went home and 
were citizen legislators in the true sense of the word.
  Today's Government is too big for this. We are going to have, for the 
foreseeable future, a full-time U.S. House and Senate doing the will of 
the public, a job that is intended to be done. But at the same time 
what has happened that goes along with this that I think is a real 
problem is that Members are becoming increasingly concerned that it is 
a full-time job and a career as well. Not all feel that way, but a 
substantial number do. We need to take the career orientation out of 
Congress and put a finite limit on the length of time that you can 
serve here.
  The reason why this seems to me to be important is because those who 
are constantly seeking reelection, viewing it as a career, are 
inevitably consciously or unconsciously going to try to please every 
interest group to get reelected. Believe you me, there is an interest 
group for every proposal that comes before Congress and certainly for 
every spending proposal. That is a good reason why we have not had a 
balanced budget.
  In addition to needing to mitigate the career orientation of too many 
Members of Congress, we need to put a permanent rule in place, 
something in the Constitution that would limit the power of any 
individual Member to control a committee or to be involved as a 
chairman or been in a powerful position for too long a period of time. 
Only a term limit amendment can do that.
  Then, term limits would provide also a certainty we are going to have 
new, fresh ideas here regularly, coming forward out of the public.
  I would suggest to my colleagues who oppose term limits and say we 
need to have the experience and wisdom here of Members who are very 
good and talented, I would say, yes, there are a few, but there are 
thousands and thousands of other Americans who can replace those whom 
we turn out, who could come here, serve their country just as well and 
would serve just as well as those of us who might think a few of those 
Members are very talented who are here.
  I happen to favor 12 years, as I have said. I think that makes more 
sense. Twelve years in the Senate and 12 years in the House rather than 
6 years in the House or 8 years in the Senate or some other number that 
is appropriate.
  My judgment is that if we go with a number different from the Senate 
and the House, that we are going to weaken this body as opposed to the 
Senate.
  When we have conference committee meetings and we have other 
opportunities to debate the issues of the day with the Senate, they 
will have the more experienced Members in the room, they will have a 
tougher staff situation, and the House will be weakened. That is not 
good public policy.
  I also happen to think that 6 years is too short. I think you need to 
be here a couple of terms before you are chairman of a full committee, 
you need to be in 6 years before you come into the leadership, because 
this is a full-time job right now whether we like it or not. It is a 
big Government. I think you open yourself, as term limits supporters, 
to the critics who oppose term limits altogether who will say the staff 
will run this place if you support the 6-year version. Twelve years in 
both bodies makes a lot of sense to me.
  But the bottom line is we need, those of us who support term limits, 
to stick together. Our latest whip check shows we have about 230 
Members openly pledged to support term limits in one form or another, 
coming out here for a vote next week. It is truly remarkable. Two 
Congresses ago we only had 33 Members of Congress willing to openly 
support term limits. In the last Congress we got up to 107. In this 
Congress now it appears that we are going to have at least 230 Members 
saying, ``Yes, we want term limits in one form or another,'' and I hope 
all 230 and 60 more which we need to get to the two-thirds to pass the 
amendment, will be here for whatever version emerges on final passage, 
whether 6 or 8 or 12, whatever. I urge all Members to seriously 
consider term limits, remember it is a historic vote out here next 
Tuesday.

                          ____________________