[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E546-E547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATES RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 2

                                 ______


                            HON. NATHAN DEAL

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 8, 1995
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record a 
substitute amendment that I, along with Marty Meehan, Jack Kingston, 
David Minge, Scott Klug, and others wish to offer to House Joint 
Resolution 2, the term limits legislation that the House will consider 
next week. This amendment will clearly resolve the issue of State 
preemption by explicitly providing that States may enact limits on the 
time a Federal legislator may serve that are shorter than the Federal 
limits in the amendment. Our amendment is based on House Joint 
Resolution 66, legislation which we introduced on January 27. This 
legislation has received bipartisan support.
  As is the case on many issues, the States are moving ahead of the 
Federal Government on political reform. Twenty-two States have approved 
limits on the number of terms to which Members of Congress can be 
elected. Just as in the House, the States disagree among themselves as 
to the number of years a person should serve in Congress. Nineteen 
States have enacted limits of less than 12 years for Members of the 
House. Several other States are considering enacting term limits 
proposals on their own.
  There is considerable doubt about whether the States have authority 
under the Constitution to enact term limits. Article I of the 
Constitution establishes three qualifications for Members of Congress: 
age, citizenship, and residency. In Powell versus McCormack, the 
Supreme Court held that the House's power was limited to judging a 
Member's compliance with the qualifications in Article I of the 
Constitution. The Court's holding in Powell was grounded upon its 
conclusion that the qualifications established in the Constitution are 
exclusive. Based on this precedent, I am concerned that the Court may 
not uphold the limits on terms established by the individual States.
  The amendment we are offering would lay to rest these constitutional 
questions by explicitly stating that the States have the authority to 
enact more limited terms. Allowing the States to set limits on terms of 
Members of Congress would be a step toward restoring the federalism 
envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. As a strong supporter of 
States' rights, I believe that the efforts in the States to enact term 
limits are healthy for our democracy. We should foster this development 
by explicitly granting the States authority to limit terms of Federal 
legislators.
  Beyond the constitutional issues, the principal criticism of allowing 
individual States to set limits on terms for Members of Congress is 
that it could result in a disparity in power in Congress among States. 
For example, voters in Washington State rejected term limits in 1991 
largely in response to concerns that limiting the terms of legislators 
from Washington would give California greater power in relation to 
Washington State.
  Our amendment would address this concern by establishing a uniform 
Federal limit of no more than 12 years in Congress, while allowing 
States to set lower limits within this overall limit. By providing that 
no Member of Congress may serve more than 12 years, this proposal would 
prevent legislators in any State from amassing disproportionate power. 
Secure in the knowledge that no State would be able to send legislators 
to Congress for more than 12 years, any State would be able to decide 
whether its interests would be better served by more rapid turnover in 
its State delegation to Congress or by allowing its Members of Congress 
to build experience and effectiveness by serving for up to 12 years.
  In addition to resolving the issue of State preemption, the amendment 
seeks to resolve the conflict among supporters of term limits in 
Congress regarding the appropriate length in terms. As you know, there 
is a disagreement between those who support a 12-year limit and those 
who prefer a limit of 6 or 8 years. Although there is stronger support 
for a 12-year limit, several Members and organizations have threatened 
to oppose legislation establishing term limits of more than 6 years. I 
believe it would be truly unfortunate if a difference over the ideal 
term limit proposal prevents us from enacting any term limits.
  Our amendment would establish a Federal limit of 12 years in the 
House, 12 years in the Senate, and would explicitly give the States the 
authority to set lower limits if they choose to do so. The amendment 
seek to capitalize on the support in Congress for a 12-year limit, 
 [[Page E547]] while empowering States to enact shorter limits if they 
desire to do so.
  I believe this compromise will improve the prospects for passage of 
the legislation in Congress as well as the chances for ratification by 
the States while, at the same time, accommodating the varied opinions 
on the exact length of limited terms. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this balanced approach to the issue of term limits.


                          ____________________