[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TERM LIMITS DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, assuming, for argument's sake, that term 
limits really will have the beneficial effect on the Congress that 
their proponents claim, why should we pass a term limits amendment that 
does not apply with full force to current members?
  Do current members possess some special virtue which immunizes them 
from the hazards of extended incumbency? My good friend Rep. McCollum 
has said that ``those of us who believe in term limits * * * need to 
stay longer'' to make sure that a term limits amendment is passed.
  Do I sense a contradiction here? By the same reasoning, we should 
encourage the alcoholic to continue drinking, so that he will be able 
to keep his goal of quitting one day.
  But the McCollum resolution doesn't just buy the alcoholic a drink; 
it gives him an open tab at the bar.
  Were the McCollum resolution to be ratified by the states and become 
part of the constitution immediately following next year's elections, 
Mr. McCollum himself would still be eligible to serve in the Congress 
until 2008. By the time he retired, he would have been in Congress for 
28 years.
  Twenty-eight years.
  Of course, the states can take up to seven years to ratify the term 
limits amendment. If the states do so, then Mr. McCollum--who has 
already served for 14 years--will have 19 more years to talk about our 
need for ``citizen legislators'' while he waits for his term limit to 
take effect. Under this scenario, when Mr. McCollum's term limits 
amendment finally forces him out of this body, he will have served for 
33 years.
  It's a tough situation for Rep. McCollum. As he himself has noted, 
``The worst thing that anybody could do who supports term limits as a 
sitting member of Congress is to step aside right now.'' (Press 
Conference on Term Limits, 5/4/92)
  Every once in a while Members of this House are called upon to cast a 
truly
 difficult vote, one that affects their own lives directly. Such is the 
constitutional amendment mandating retroactive term limits, of which I 
am an original sponsor. Members who have already served six terms when 
the amendment passes will be ineligible to run again. This amendment 
will give Members who really believe in term limits a chance to vote 
for a term limits amendment with teeth.

  But while we're waiting for term limits to pass, there's something 
else we can do to clean up Congress, to make elections something more 
than the ``mockery'' which our Speaker has said they often are, to 
reduce the overpowering advantages of incumbency in the American 
political system.
  I am talking about campaign finance reform.
  I've noticed that the Contract With America is completely silent on 
the issue of campaign finance reform.
  Yet the rhetoric about term limits grows louder by the day. Whether 
you are on this floor, in your car listening to the radio, or at home 
watching your television, it's everywhere these days.
  Yes, it's true, we have too many Members of Congress who have been 
working here so long that they now feel that they are entitled to be 
Members of Congress.
  And we have too many lobbyists, too many ``public relations'' 
specialists in this town, and they certainly have a lot more influence 
over the legislation that is produced by this body than the average 
working man or woman does.
  But this problem does not exist because people are serving in 
Congress too long; many of our greatest statesmen have had unusually 
long Congressional careers.
  This problem exists because of the way elections are paid for.
  To hear them talk, you would think my Republican friends are boldly 
leading the way into the era of Citizen Legislator, and that term 
limits are the definitive answer to the problem of the 
professionalization of politics.
  But all the while, my Republican friends are completely ignoring the 
legislation that will do more than anything else to release the 
Congress from its bondage to the lobbyists and the special interests--
campaign finance reform.
  The McCollum term limits resolution is really nothing more than an 
incumbency protection resolution. This is why more than 30 Members who 
have already been in Congress for 12 years or more support it so 
enthusiastically.
  Instead of following such an uncertain and indirect path to reform, 
wouldn't it be much simpler to pass real campaign finance reform, and 
take away the money and influence that allow people to stay in this 
body for year after year by drowning their opponents in a sea of money?
  Wouldn't it be much simpler to stop talking about phony term limits 
resolutions and instead do something to seriously limit the influence 
of big money campaign donors on our political system?
  But the Contract With America is silent on this issue.
  It's time to stop posturing on this issue and do the right thing.
  If you are for term limits--really for term limits--support the real 
thing, support retroactive term limits.
  But even more importantly, let's reform the campaign finance laws and 
restore equity to the electoral process.
  Whether you are in your first term or your twentieth, let's try to 
create a political system in which the citizens rule, and in which the 
dollar is no longer king.


                     quotable quotes on term limits

       ``This is a tool that I think will do for Congress exactly 
     what I did with a pitchfork for my dad's stable.''--Dick 
     Armey (first elected, 1984) (Seelye, N.Y. Times. 1/12/95)
       ``I have served here now in my 13th year. I am not ready to 
     walk away from here until Teddy Kennedy and you guys want to 
     voluntarily walk away. Those of us who believe in term limits 
     and those of us who want to see things change around here 
     need to stay longer, unfortunately, because the system is the 
     way it is, in order to have the influence it takes when you 
     get a few years in here.''--Bill McCollum (Testimony before 
     Subcmte. on Civil and Constitutional Rights, 11/18/93)
       ``If the Republicans can straighten out the House, I think 
     Americans will find their enthusiasm for term limits waning 
     quite a bit''.--Dick Armey, after Nov, '94 elections (AP, 12/
     6/94).
       ``Term limits are essential for a healthy and open 
     political system.''--Dick Armey, one week later (AP, 12/6/
     94).
       ``I am for them [term limits] myself, but the retroactive 
     feature is not a fair feature. It's not the way the Florida 
     statute reads.* * * I think that's unconstitutional.''--Bill 
     McCollum, CNN's Crossfire, 11/29/94.
       ``***I think systematically the balance of power in favor 
     of professional politicians as incumbents is so great that in 
     fact it may--in many places it has made a mockery of the 
     process of open elections.''--Newt Gingrich (Press Conference 
     on Term Limits, 1/11/95).


 supporters of non-retroactive term limits who would be forced to step 
                 down under retroactive 12-year limits

       Dornan (1976), Solomon (1978), Roth (1978), Packard (1982), 
     Stump (1976), Crane (1969), Fields (1980), McCollum (1980), 
     Hansen (1980), Bereuter (1978), Gekas (1982), Gunderson 
     (1980), Leach (1976), Saxton (1982), Schaefer (1983), Shaw 
     (1980), Wilson (1972), Goodling (1974), Gingrich (1978).
     

                          ____________________