[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3702-H3703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          SUPPORT TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the gentleman from 
Illinois say it to everybody out there that, gee, McCollum must not 
really believe in term limits because he does not believe in the 
particular version that the gentleman prefers, with retroactivity in 
it. I hope every Member on that side of the aisle who wants to support 
their version will do the same thing I am going to do, and that is make 
a pledge 
 [[Page H3703]] and then live up to it to vote for whatever version of 
term limits comes out of here next Wednesday when we finally get a 
chance after all of these years to vote on term limits and vote for 
whatever version is on the floor for final passage.
  If it is the gentleman's version out here with retroactivity in it, 
Bill McCollum is going to vote for it. I urge them to do so. I happen 
not to prefer that, I prefer another version, but I think we need to 
put all of the term limits business in perspective, and that is why I 
am out to help do that a little bit this evening.
  Next week this House of Representatives is going to have an 
opportunity to cast a historic vote. For the first time in the history 
of this country in either the House or the Senate, we are going to get 
to vote on a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Members of 
the House and Senate. Just two Congresses ago, in the 102d, there were 
not more than about 33 Members of the House willing to publicly support 
term limits. In the last Congress, in the 103d, thanks to the sophomore 
class that came in of both parties last time, we got up to 107. Now we 
are trying to get to 290, the magic number it takes to pass a 
constitutional amendment to give us term limits throughout this Nation.
  I do not know if we are going to achieve 290, but I think it is going 
to be a very big successful day for term limits getting to the floor 
and having the vote. And I believe we are going to go well over 200. We 
have a good chance and we are working very hard to get 290, but we need 
everybody who says they support term limits, and I hope they really do, 
to be there, to be there on the final vote, to cast their vote yes for 
whatever is out here.
  There are going to be four options. Yes, my bill
   is the base bill, but it may not be the one that is finally there 
standing. I personally favor 12 years in the Senate, 12 years in the 
House. I think it makes a lot more sense than versions that have a 
shorter number of years in the House of Representatives to cap the 
length of time you can serve here. I personally believe that it would 
be a very serious problem in terms of the power of the House versus the 
power of the Senate if we had the House serving less time. I think you 
would have a stronger Senate vis-a-vis the House and a weaker House if 
that occurred, and I do not think that is smart for us to do 6 or 8 
years for the House and 12 years for the Senate.

  So I think 12 and 12 is the right balance.
  I also think 6 years is too short, but that version is going to be 
out here. I think it is too short in the sense from my experience here, 
as complex as this government is, you need to be here about that length 
of time, 6 years before I want you to be a full committee chairman or 
in leadership of either of the parties, but that is a judgment call on 
my part.
  Mr. English is also going to offer 6 and 12. If it gets enough votes 
to be here on final passage, I am going to vote for that, I am going to 
encourage you to vote for it.
  Then we are going to have an option out on the floor, Mr. Hilleary's 
option that will say we pass a 12-year cap for the House and Senate and 
if the States want to decide under that 12-year cap whatever they want 
to decide in lesser years, then they ought to be allowed to do that and 
we will put it in the Constitution. I personally do not favor that. I 
happen to think that that is going to allow a lot of hodge-podge around 
the country for years to come with some States with 6 for the House and 
some 8 and gosh, maybe 4 and 10 and so forth.
                              {time}  2000

  I do not think that is good Government. I think uniformity throughout 
the Nation is preferable. My particular proposal is going to be silent 
with regard to what the Supreme Court is going to decide. It would not 
preempt the State. If the Supreme Court decides in the Arkansas case 
later on this spring that the State provisions that have been passed 
around the country for 6, or 8 or other years is a constitutional thing 
to do, then they will indeed prevail but the 12-year cap will be there, 
and the Hilleary idea will be ingrained into law by virtue of the 
Supreme Court decision, but I do not think it is a good idea, and I 
think, if the Supreme Court decides the present powers of the States do 
not exist in the Constitution to do this, then we should not give them 
the additional powers. We should go ahead and pass my version of the 
amendment, and then it would become at that point, if the court rules 
otherwise, it rules that States cannot do this, the uniform national 
12-year standard. But if the Hilleary proposal prevails here and it is 
the wisdom of the majority to have it as the substitute amendment, I am 
going to vote for that on final passage, and I hope my colleagues do, 
too.
  And, yes, the Democrat version with retroactivity is in there. I do 
not agree with that. I happen to think that all 22 States that have 
passed term limit proposals in the States are right. They did not pass 
retroactivity in any of those States, and in the one State it came up, 
in Washington State, they defeated it and had to come back later with 
one that was not retroactive. I do not think that is smart. We can 
debate it out here, but, if that version happens to prevail, I am going 
to vote for it, too, on final passage.
  The bottom line is we have a chance finally to do what the American 
people, nearly 80 percent, have been saying all along, and that is for 
us to pass a term limits constitutional amendment, and nobody should 
try to hide or be allowed to hide under dodge of one preference or the 
other. The key is going to be to get to final passage and vote yes. I 
say to my colleagues, ``If you don't vote yes for term limits on final 
passage, don't come back to your voters next year and tell them you're 
for term limits.''


                          ____________________