[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3831-H3840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 73, TERM LIMITS 
                        CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                              H. Res. 116

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 73) proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States with respect to the 
     number of terms of office of Members of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives. The first reading of the joint 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the joint resolution and shall not exceed three 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     After general debate the joint resolution shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be 
     in order except those specified in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order specified in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, may be considered notwithstanding the adoption of a 
     previous amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. If more than one amendment 
     is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of 
     affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In 
     the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative 
     votes, then only the last amendment to receive that number of 
     affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the joint resolution for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
     resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been 
     finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution and any amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to open this historic debate and mindful of 
the significance of our discussion. As we speak, reports suggest that 
there are not yet enough votes to pass the constitutional amendment 
limiting Members terms. A loss on this issue will be decried by some as 
failure--but that would miss the point. It is a victory to be here 
having this debate, to have a rule that forces Members to come clean on 
where they really stand on term limits. We promised this vote--and we 
have delivered. It was not so long ago, that Tom Foley was Speaker of 
this House--the same man who sued the people of his own State over this 
question; the same man who refused to allow term limits to come to the 
floor for an honest vote. We may or may not have the 290 votes when all 
is said and done here this week, but either way the issue of term 
limits is not going away. There are 22 States with term limits; 80 
[[Page H3832]] percent of Americans want term limits; and there is 
another election coming in November 1996. The final vote taken here 
Thursday afternoon will be irrefutable to our constituents, as they 
watch to see where we stand individually and collectively. It is a vote 
that matters and Members should know there is no place to hide.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule offers Members a chance to consider the major 
issues involved in this debate. The rule makes in order as base text 
House Joint Resolution 73. I should note that this text is the same as 
was used as the chairman's mark in the Judiciary Committee. Although 
the committee adopted some amendments, the reported version came 
forward without recommendation, without much committee support on 
either side of the aisle and without a prime sponsor. The rule allows 3 
hours of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, after which Members will 
have the chance to vote on four substitutes, with 1 hour of debate on 
each. The minority was consulted and given the choice of which 
substitute to offer, and has chosen to present the 12-year, so-called 
retroactive Peterson-Dingell version. Subsequent to that vote, Members 
will vote on a 6-year proposal offered by Representative Inglis and 
then a 12-year measure that does not preempt State limits offered by 
Representative Hilleary. Last, Members will have a chance to cast their 
votes for or against the 12-year McCollum proposal, the version that is 
contained in the base text of House Joint Resolution 73. Once the 
amendment process is complete, the substitute that earns the most votes 
will be considered for final passage--the winner-take-all approach--at 
which time, because this is a constitutional amendment, 290 votes are 
needed. As is customary, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect this to be a fascinating debate. Recognizing 
that very sincere and thoughtful people strongly oppose the concept of 
terms limits, passage is far from certain. But the mere fact that we
 are having this debate--and the coming series of votes--at all, 
suggests just how much change has taken place in this Capitol since 
January 4.

  The fundamental, bottom line distinction that will be drawn in this 
process is the one most Americans are watching for: Who supports term 
limits for Congress. We can expect a fair amount of ducking and weaving 
by those Members who want to appear committed to term limits but might 
prefer that term limits disappear without enough votes for passage. 
Americans should not be fooled by the attempt of long-time term limits 
opponents to change the subject to one of so-called retroactivity. 
Americans should consider the source of that proposal. Keep in mind 
that most of its sponsors and those senior, status-quo Democrats who 
will speak up for it have never supported term limits, have never 
introduced such a bill, and did nothing when their party controlled 
this House to move that debate to the floor. It is a smokescreen and it 
should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, Florida is a term limits State--the voters there have 
spoken for an 8-year limit on Members' terms. As a long-time believer 
in the need to shake up the status quo, create some national parity and 
still respect States' rights to establish their own, more stringent 
limits--I believe the best option before this House is the Hilleary 
proposal. Still, the most important mission we have this week is to 
verify if 290 votes exist to pass national term limits--in one form or 
another. I urge my colleagues to listen closely to what the American 
people are asking us to do. Either way, we will establish some clear 
accountability. Our constituents should appreciate that.
                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we object to this rule, and to the resolution that it 
makes in order. The issue before us--term limits for Members of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate--goes to the heart of our form 
of government, and it will be instructive for the House of 
Representatives to conduct a debate on this extremely important matter. 
But we have reservations about the procedure for considering this 
matter and, more importantly, we hope and expect that the outcome of 
this historic debate, will be the failure of all four versions of this 
ill-advised initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, although the rule makes in order four different 
approaches to term limits, there is one critical aspect of this issue 
that this rule does not adequately address, and that is the question of 
retroactive coverage. Many on our side believe that, as a matter of 
equity and fairness, if we are going to limit the number of terms that 
Members who are first elected in the future may serve in the Congress, 
we ought to count the time already spent here by Members, at the time, 
term limits take effect. That is to say, we should not treat ourselves 
as new Members for the purposes of counting the number of terms once 
these limits take effect.
  While it is true that one of the four versions of the term limit 
proposals made in order by this rule, the Peterson-Dingell substitute, 
would provide that previous service shall be taken into account when 
determining the number of terms a Member may serve, the issue of 
retroactivity is important enough that the membership ought to be able 
to consider it for each of the four alternatives to be put before us.
  During the Rules Committee consideration of this rule, we offered an 
amendment that would have allowed any of the versions of term-limit 
proposals to be amended to provide for retroactive coverage. 
Unfortunately, our amendment was rejected. The result is that the 
membership will not have the opportunity to consider the issue of 
retroactivity with respect to three of the four different versions.
  Aside from the procedural aspects of this debate, the substance of 
the term-limits issue is extremely troubling to many of us.
  We are all mindful of current popular sentiment on this issue
   which favors limiting the number of terms a person may serve in the 
House or in the Senate.

  But limiting the number of terms a person may serve would deny 
citizens a very fundamental civic right--the right to choose the people 
whom they want to be their voice in Washington. Voters would be 
prohibited from choosing to return to the Congress, after either 6 
years or 12 years, as the case may be, a Representative or a Senator 
who is serving them to their satisfaction--and representing them better 
than they believe any of their electoral competitors would. And never 
again would they have the opportunity to be represented by someone who 
has more than 12 years, or possibly more than just 6 years, of 
experience in the Congress.
  Imposing a term limit is like saying that the American people cannot 
be trusted to meet the challenge of self-government.
  Experience in legislative work is valuable, just as it is in 
teaching, medicine, law, engineering, carpentry, and every other 
profession or vocation. Knowledge and wisdom are derived from 
experience in legislating, just as they are from experience in any 
other job.
  How foolish and destructive it would be, to remove all of the most 
experienced legislators from the U.S. Congress, and to ensure that the 
Congress will, for the rest of time, be composed entirely of relatively 
inexperienced Members. How utterly senseless it would be to obliterate 
all the long-term institutional memory that exists among the men and 
women of this great institution.
  Term limits would indiscriminately sacrifice too many experienced, 
effective, intelligent, honest, and skilled legislators of all 
political stripes.
  Knowledge is power. If we remove from Congress the Representatives 
and Senators who have the most in-depth knowledge of the issues, who 
have had the most years of experience working on those issues, then we 
will greatly empower congressional staff, lobbyists, and Federal 
bureaucrats--Washington's permanent bureaucracy, as they are even now 
often referred to--because they will be the only people in and around 
the Capitol who have any institutional memory. Members will be far 
[[Page H3833]] more dependent on them for understanding what it is the 
House or Senate is considering, than we are now.
  No matter how dedicated they are to the public interest, 
congressional staff, lobbyists, and bureaucrats are not elected by 
citizens to represent them in the Congress, and they are not 
accountable to the voters. They do not derive their power from standing 
for election every 2 years, as we do. I can think of nothing more 
damaging to representative government--to the responsiveness of our 
political system--than to reduce the power of those who are accountable 
to the voters, and to enhance the power of those who are not.
  I have had the opportunity to preview, you might say, the effect of 
term limits when I served on the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence several years ago. As Members know, until this year, 
Members were prohibited from serving for more than 6 years at a time on 
that important committee.
  Even though virtually every member of the committee had had several 
years of experience in Congress, we had no one on the committee who had 
any experience overseeing the operations of the intelligence community 
that extended beyond 6 years. Most of us found that it took us about 3 
or 4 years just to learn the intricacies of the issues involved in 
intelligence operations, and then we had just 2 years to really use 
that expertise--to be in a position where we could pose challenging 
questions to the heads of the CIA and other intelligence agencies and 
make sensible decisions about the tens of billions of dollars of 
appropriations for those agencies that it was our responsibility to 
make. After those 2 years, Members would rotate off the committee and 
would be replaced by new members, who would take 3 to 4 years to get up 
to speed on these difficult and arcane issues before the committee.
  The loss of the most experienced Members was a serious hindrance to 
the committee's effectiveness--so serious, in fact, that with strong 
support on both sides of the aisle, we have, just this year, extended 
the terms on the committee to four terms, or 8 years, with a fifth 
term, or 10 years, for the chairman.
  Those of us from California have also observed what has happened in 
the California State Legislature, which now has a 6-year term limit. 
Knowing that they cannot stay for more than a very few years, 
legislators come into office looking for ways to use their short stint 
to make their next career move.
  Many leave after 3 or 4 years and take jobs in
   the industries they have been overseeing as legislators, or they to 
look for other offices to run for. Two years from now, there will not 
be anyone in Sacramento, except staff and lobbyists, who has any kind 
of institutional memory. The citizens of California are being poorly 
served under these circumstances, and it would be a grave error to 
extend this failing system to our national legislature as well.

  Mr. Speaker, I am among the majority of members of our party who find 
myself in disagreement with many of the initiatives that have been 
brought forth by our new Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] and his colleagues in the majority, across the aisle. But I 
take comfort in the fact that Mr. Gingrich has been here for 16 years 
and understands the institution. I seriously doubt that the 
accomplishments of these past 3 months--like them or not--would have 
been possible if the Speaker, and the other members of the new 
leadership, and the new committee Chairs, were not the seasoned 
legislators that in fact they are.
  Every Member of this body who is considering voting for term limits 
ought to think long and hard about whether we are truly serving the 
best interests of the American people if we force the House of 
Representatives, forever more, to elect leaders who have no more than 
10 years of previous experience here--or worse, under the 6-year limit 
proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] to elect 
leaders who have no more than 4 years of previous experience in the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, we are sympathetic to the frustration people feel about 
the Congress--that somehow, the system is just not working, that 
Congress is not solving the problems that people back home care about. 
But more rapid turnover in Congress is not the answer. There is already 
a huge turnover. Well more than half of the current members of the 
House were first elected since 1990 and, of course, the high turnover 
in the last election also resulted in the change in party control here. 
It is ironic that, having just emerged from an election which made the 
strongest case imaginable that term limits are unnecessary, we are now 
poised to vote on them.
  Mr. Speaker, term limits would make Congress less responsive and less 
effective, not more so. They would deny the right of citizens to choose 
whom they want to represent them in Congress; they would ensure that 
Congress is composed entirely of relatively inexperienced legislators; 
and they would enhance the already considerable power of unelected and 
unaccountable staff, lobbyists, and bureaucrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on 
all versions of the term-limit constitutional amendment that this rule 
makes in order.

       Over the past 30 years, 14 constitutional amendments have 
     been considered by the House of Representatives. Nearly half 
     of the amendments (6) were considered under open rules.


                              OPEN RULE--6

       89th Congress (1965-1966): H.J. Res. 1--Presidential 
     succession. Considered under an open rule providing for four 
     hours of general debate.
       91st Congress (1969-1971): H.J. Res. 681--Direct election 
     of the President. Considered under an open rule providing six 
     hours of general debate.
       92nd Congress (1971-1972): H.J. Res. 223-Vote for 18 year 
     olds. Considered under an open rule providing two hours of 
     general debate. H.J. Res. 208--Equal Rights Amendments. 
     Considered under an open rule providing four hours of general 
     debate.
       94th Congress (1975-1976): H.J. Res. 280-DC Congressional 
     Representation. Considered under an open rule providing three 
     hours of general debate.
       95th Congress (1977-1978): H.J. Res. 280-DC Congressional 
     Representation. Considered under an open rule providing two 
     hours of general debate.


                DISCHARGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT--2

       92nd Congress (1971-1972): H.J. Res. 191--School Prayer.
       96th Congress (1979-1980): H.J. Res. 74--School Assignment.


                             SUSPENSION--2

       98th Congress (1983-1984): H.J. Res. 1--Equal Rights 
     Amendment.
       101st Congress (1989-1990): H.J. Res. 350--Flag Protection. 
     Provided five hours of general debate.


                          King-of-the-Hill--4

       97th Congress (1981-1982): H.J. Res. 450--Balanced Budget.
       101st Congress (1989-1990): H.J. Res. 268--Balanced Budget.
       102nd Congress (1991-1992): H.J. Res. 290--Balanced Budget.
       103rd Congress (1993-1994): H.J. Res. 103--Balanced Budget.

                                      FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1.................  Compliance.............  H. Res. 6         Closed......................           None.
H. Res. 6..............  Opening Day Rules        H. Res. 5         Closed; contained a closed             None.
                          Package.                                   rule on H.R. 1 within the                  
                                                                     closed rule.                               
H.R. 5.................  Unfunded Mandates......  H. Res. 38        Restrictive; Motion adopted             N/A.
                                                                     over Democratic objection                  
                                                                     in the Committee of the                    
                                                                     Whole to limit debate on                   
                                                                     section 4; Pre-printing                    
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.J. Res. 2............  Balanced Budget........  H. Res. 44        Restrictive; only certain            2R; 4D.
                                                                     substitutes.                               
H. Res. 43.............  Committee Hearings       H. Res. 43 (OJ)   Restrictive; considered in              N/A.
                          Scheduling.                                House, no amendments.                      
H.R. 2.................  Line Item Veto.........  H. Res. 55        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                                                                     preference.                                
H.R. 665...............  Victim Restitution Act   H. Res. 61        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          of 1995.                                   preference.                                
H.R. 666...............  Exclusionary Rule        H. Res. 60        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Reform Act of 1995.                        preference.                                
H.R. 667...............  Violent Criminal         H. Res. 63        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Incarceration Act of                       on amendments.                             
                          1995.                                                                                 
H.R. 668...............  The Criminal Alien       H. Res. 69        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Deportation                                preference; Contains self-                 
                          Improvement Act.                           executing provision.                       
H.R. 728...............  Local Government Law     H. Res. 79        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Enforcement Block                          on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          Grants.                                    gets preference.                           
H.R. 7.................  National Security        H. Res. 83        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Revitalization Act.                        on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 729...............  Death Penalty/Habeas...  N/A               Restrictive; brought up                 N/A.
                                                                     under UC with a 6 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap on amendments.                         


                                                                                                                
[[Page H3834]]
                                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2...................  Senate Compliance......  N/A               Closed; Put on suspension              None.
                                                                     calendar over Democratic                   
                                                                     objection.                                 
H.R. 831...............  To Permanently Extend    H. Res. 88        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          the Health Insurance                       only the Gibbons amendment;                
                          Deduction for the Self-                    waives all points of order;                
                          Employed.                                  Contains self-executing                    
                                                                     provision.                                 
H.R. 830...............  The Paperwork Reduction  H. Res. 91        Open........................            N/A.
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 889...............  Emergency Supplemental/  H. Res. 92        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          Rescinding Certain                         only the Obey substitute.                  
                          Budget Authority.                                                                     
H.R. 450...............  Regulatory Moratorium..  H. Res. 93        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 1022..............  Risk Assessment........  H. Res. 96        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments.                             
H.R. 926...............  Regulatory Flexibility.  H. Res. 100       Open........................            N/A.
H.R. 925...............  Private Property         H. Res. 101       Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap             1D.
                          Protection Act.                            on amendments; Requires                    
                                                                     Members to pre-print their                 
                                                                     amendments in the Record                   
                                                                     prior to the bill's                        
                                                                     consideration for                          
                                                                     amendment, waives                          
                                                                     germaneness and budget act                 
                                                                     points of order as well as                 
                                                                     points of order concerning                 
                                                                     appropriating on a                         
                                                                     legislative bill against                   
                                                                     the committee substitute                   
                                                                     used as base text.                         
H.R. 1058..............  Securities Litigation    H. Res. 105       Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap              1D.
                          Reform Act.                                on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference; Makes in                  
                                                                     order the Wyden amendment                  
                                                                     and waives germaness                       
                                                                     against it.                                
H.R. 988...............  The Attorney             H. Res. 104       Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap             N/A.
                          Accountability Act of                      on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          1995.                                      gets preference.                           
H.R. 956...............  Product Liability and    H. Res. 109       Restrictive; makes in order          8D; 7R.
                          Legal Reform Act.                          only 15 germane amendments                 
                                                                     and denies 64 germane                      
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 1158..............  Making Emergency         H. Res. 115       Restrictive; Combines                   N/A.
                          Supplemental                               emergency H.R. 1158 &                      
                          Appropriations and                         nonemergency 1159 and                      
                          Rescissions.                               strikes the abortion                       
                                                                     provision; makes in order                  
                                                                     only pre-printed amendments                
                                                                     that include offsets within                
                                                                     the same chapter (deeper                   
                                                                     cuts in programs already                   
                                                                     cut); waives points of                     
                                                                     order against three                        
                                                                     amendments; waives cl 2 of                 
                                                                     rule XXI against the bill,                 
                                                                     cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule                 
                                                                     XVI against the substitute;                
                                                                     waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendments in                  
                                                                     the Record; 10 hr time cap                 
                                                                     on amendments. 30 minutes                  
                                                                     debate on each amendment.                  
H.J. Res. 73...........  Term Limits............  H. Res. 116       Restrictive; Makes in order          1D; 3R.
                                                                     only 4 amendments                          
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure and                
                                                                     denies 21 germane                          
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 4.................  Welfare Reform.........  H. Res. 119       Restrictive; Makes in order         5D; 26R.
                                                                     only 31 perfecting                         
                                                                     amendments and two                         
                                                                     substitutes; Denies 130                    
                                                                     germane amendments from                    
                                                                     being considered; The                      
                                                                     substitutes are to be                      
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure;                   
                                                                     All points of order are                    
                                                                     waived against the                         
                                                                     amendments.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**78% restrictive; 22% open. ****Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be  
  offered, and include so called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and 
  rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of   
  restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the   
  103rd Congress. ****Not included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension
  Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.                                                                       

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder], a very valuable member of the Rules Committee who 
has helped us craft this very fair rule.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary day for those of us who believe 
that the American people are better served by dentists, teachers, and 
football players than by career politicians.
  I strongly support the rule that will allow for the consideration of 
House Joint Resolution 2, the constitutional amendment to limit the 
terms of Members of the House and the Senate. I am pleased that four 
distinct constitutional amendments will be considered to address the 
major aspects of the term limits movement. The rule permits 3 hours of 
general debate and enables the House to engage in a full and fair 
debate on the length of the term limits, the question of retroactivity, 
and whether State law can be preempted by Federal law.
  It is important to note that, in the past, the Judiciary Committee 
has never even considered term limit resolutions. Furthermore, the full 
House has never been permitted the opportunity to consider, debate, or 
vote on term limit resolutions. As you may remember, supporters of the 
term limits movement were forced to file a discharge petition in a 
futile attempt to get a discussion of this legislation last year. The 
Rules Committee was extraordinarily fair in approving four term limit 
substitutes in this first-ever debate, and it is really rather 
disingenuous for those who frustrated this debate for decades to argue 
that we are limiting debate.
  I support term limits and personally believe that our Founding 
Fathers never intended for there to be a permanent governing class that 
would rule from Washington and lose touch with the citizens they were 
elected to represent. But that is not what we are debating here today. 
We are debating a rule that will allow the U.S. House of 
Representatives its first opportunity ever to hold ample discussions 
about the merits of limiting our service in this body.
  There are Members on both sides of the aisle who have honest 
disagreements about the merits of term limits. Nonetheless, when 70 
percent of the American people support something, there should be a 
vote on the issue on the floor of this Chamber. The American people 
have been denied this debate for far too long, and an affirmative vote 
on this rule grants them that debate.
  This is the first rule on term limits in the history of this House, 
and it is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 
116 and bring the term limits debate to the floor of the people's 
house.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from the Committee on 
Rules for having made available this opportunity for me to offer an 
amendment to the legislation before us.
  When our Founding Fathers debated the term limitation idea 200 years 
ago and more, they decided it was a bad idea. That was as a result of 
extensive debate on the merits and flaws of putting additional 
qualifications on persons seeking election to the Congress of the 
United States.
  It was the feeling of the Founding Fathers that those decisions 
should be left to the voters, a wise judgment and one which I always 
supported. The decision not to include term limits in the Constitution 
was based upon free and open debate. Regrettably, we will not see free 
and open debate here because the Rules Committee has only permitted 
that four amendments will be available to the legislation before us. 
So, again, we have a rule which, as all will note is closed again.
  Having said that, it was only just a few minutes after the House 
convened on January 4 that the first piece of legislation was brought 
to this body under a closed rule. Democrats argued that this was 
unfair. Republicans said, Do not worry. There will be free and fair 
debate in the future. That we still await.
  We have now an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
that will be considered, again, under a closed rule. It is interesting 
to note that it was so sloppily done in the Committee on the Judiciary 
that it was not even possible for the Committee on Rules to make that 
particular pronouncement by the Committee on the Judiciary in order.
  It is interesting to note that that proposal has been rejected in its 
entirety and we now have a quite different matter than that which was 
originally laid before the House by the Committee on the Judiciary.
  One interesting thing, and I speak now as the dean of this body, a 
Member who has served longer than anybody else, about the legislation 
is that it does not count the prior service of all of us who have 
served here. And so while we bravely and boldly say we are going to 
limit terms, we are limiting terms only of those in the future. And I 
will be permitted to serve here somewhere between the year 2014 and the 
year 2019. And every other Member who is here will have somewhere 
between 14 and 19 years.
  Now, we are being charged outside of these halls with this being a 
hypocritical act. I am not going to say 
[[Page H3835]] whether it is hypocrisy or is not. But clearly, this is 
not term limits which is going to affect anybody who is not in this 
chamber. Indeed it is only going to affect those who will follow us. 
And all of us here present will be able to serve long enough to qualify 
fully for our pensions and to achieve the very continued circumstance 
about which everybody complains. And that is, on this side, that we 
have served here too long and that we must have some kind of a 
purgative which will clean this institution. If that is what we should 
do and if we are going to amend the Constitution, then it should be 
done by having it have immediate effect, not retroactive. Just say if 
you have served here and it is evil to serve here so long, then what we 
should do is to see to it that the term limits should apply fairly to 
all and that all should depart according to the vote.
  We look to see how many of the enthusiasts for term limits will be 
voting for real term limits or whether they will want to shaft.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the previous speaker 
who so eloquently spoke about retroactivity, and so forth, that of the 
22 States that have voted for term limits, not 1, repeat, not 1 has 
gone the retroactive route. And where it has been tested in State 
elections, it has been defeated. I think that is worth noting.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, what an historic day, particularly for a freshman in 
this great body to be at the present, at the creation, present at the 
inception, present at the beginning of the first debate in modern times 
over whether or not the people of this great country will at long last, 
will themselves at long last have the opportunity to decide if they 
want, not if we want, but if they want limits on the number of years 
that our Senators and our Members of Congress can serve.
  Mr. Speaker, it may be that those on the other side of the aisle find 
something nefarious here, find a hidden agenda, or are whining or 
complaining about the rule under which this debate is being initiated. 
But I stand here and say, praise the leaders of this Congress, praise 
the leaders of this party, praise the leaders of the committees, 
including the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
in which we had full and fair debate on these issues, for bringing this 
issue at long last to this floor so that we can make a decision that 
the people of the 50 States can themselves decide.
  Because if we do not give them that opportunity, then for all 
practical purposes, they will not have the opportunity for their voice 
to be heard and heard indeed it must, because the people of this 
country are tired of business as usual. They are tired of the status 
quo. They rose up on November 8 of last year and said, We want change; 
we want it now. We do not want to wait for eons or decades or years. We 
want change now. And today this hour, this evening and this week we are 
going to give them that change in this body by fully and fairly and 
openly debating whether or not the people of this country deserve to be 
able to themselves decide, as our Founding Fathers believed they have 
the right to decide, whether or not to have term limits.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here and say thank you for allowing me and thank 
the chairman of this distinguished body for allowing me the opportunity 
to be present at that debate. I say let the debate begin, and I say let 
the people have term limits so a breath of fresh air can indeed 
continue to squeak through these great chambers.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say, I really do think this is business as usual. 
I find it very, very disappointing that we have this rule in front of 
us today. Right after this, all of this election happened, the then 
Speaker-Elect Gingrich promised that each of the 10 items in the 
contract would come up under an open rule. Well, here we are. And guess 
what? That has not happened, over and over again.
  But on this specific item, as briefly or as shortly ago as March 9, 
the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Linder, came to the floor and 
announced this would come up under an open rule. Well, guess what? Here 
we are, and it did not happen.
  Now, what has happened here? There were 30 amendments printed in the 
Record. Not one will be made in order. Instead, they have carefully 
crafted a little rule where four substitutes will be made in order. And 
guess what? Three of them are Democratic. So I do not see any way you 
can say that this is a fair rule or an open rule or we are going to be 
able to come forward and have the kind of debate that everybody was 
told at the beginning of this session would happen on each of these 
individual items.
  We have seen this pattern go on and on over and over again, and I 
really think it is really rather tragic. It certainly is a turnoff for 
the Members who worked hard, came forward with amendments that they 
felt were very sincere, had them printed in the Record so every one had 
notice. And then what happens? The Committee on Rules unilaterally just 
shoves them all off the table and says, We are not going to hear about 
any of those.
  I could debate the substance of this, too. And I guess we are, 
sometime a little later on, going to debate the substance of it. One of 
the things I thought we ought to do, maybe we ought to talk about at 
that time is tattooing on everybody's forehead their spoil date when 
they get elected so we can remind people when we are supposed to rot. 
This is kind of an amendment saying that all of us will rot after 6 
years or 8 years or 12 years or whatever in public office.
  However, if you switch public office and go to be a Governor or go to 
be a Senator or go to be a President or go back and be a mayor or go to 
the State
 house, no, no, you can move laterally through the chairs anyway you 
want to. You just cannot stay in the same chair and learn the job well.

  That does not make a lot of sense to me. But there are many things in 
here that I think it is like a lot of reforms. It sounded terrific. 
When you peel it away and start looking at it and thinking about how it 
is going to apply, you begin to understand why our forefathers turned 
this idea down over 200 years ago and why they continued to turn it 
down for over 200 years. And I am not too sure they were not really 
right, when you look at it all. But I think it is very sad that many 
Members could not offer amendments to point out these different 
nuances, and we could not have an open debate around here.
  I think we know why. The fear is Members are going to leave the 
reservation or they could not get enough votes or they had to find some 
way to strong-arm Members around one proposal or another. But this is 
just too serious an issue.
  The Constitution is not a rough draft that we change every week. The 
Constitution has been a wonderful document that has held this great 
republic together for over 200 years. Now every time we look, we have 
got another amendment like this one coming at it, saying, on my 
goodness, the republic is only going to hold unless we can get this 
amendment through.
  I do not think we should do this, but I certainly hope we vote 
against the rule. It is certainly contrary to everything we have been 
told this year would happen. It certainly is not open.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just congratulate the gentlewoman from Colorado for being 
consistent, as I believe we have been. She said at the Committee on 
Rules meeting that the Constitution is not a rough draft. Indeed, it is 
not. We all agree.
  It is for that reason we do not have an open rule. Never do we 
practice constitutional amendments under open rules. I think if you go 
back and look at the times, the 40 years when your party was in the 
majority and you were leading from that side, the treatment was the 
same.
  What we promised and what I think we are being consistent about, in 
the spirit of all that goes into the Contract With America, is open 
debate and fair rules to give the ideas a chance to be deliberately 
discussed on the floor.
  [[Page H3836]] I think that opportunity is present.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. But what we understood was you were being very 
critical of the fact and said that these things should come up under 
open rules. And we had an announcement on the floor on March 9, that 
there would be an open rule or at least some of the 30 amendments would 
be considered or some of the Democratic amendments would be considered.
  I mean, I find it very interesting that you say this is a revolution. 
We cannot tolerate the Democratic leadership anymore. And then whenever 
we start to say, now, wait a minute, what have you done here? You say, 
Well, the Democrats did it.
  That is why I started out by saying this looks like business as 
usual. We thought there was going to be a chance here to openly debate 
this issue, which I think is very important.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentlewoman 
does not mean to imply that business as usual under the Democrats was 
an inhospitable thing. Surely that was not the case.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I would not imply that, but that was the gentleman's implication and 
the Speaker's implication when they took over. I just think it is 
interesting that just a few weeks in power, and the gentlemen's party 
finds out the Democrats were not so off base after all.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentlewoman for her 
part in this colloquy, I still believe we all agree that is not 
appropriate to have an open rule on a constitutional amendment, which 
this is proposing to be.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary], who has crafted what I think is one of the 
most worthy of the substitutes for consideration. I am sure it will be 
much discussed and get much interest during the debate.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
for bringing this issue to a vote. I adamantly support the rule which 
will allow the House for the first time to vote on term limits in a 
recorded vote, what we promised in the Contract With America, and we 
are delivering on it.
  This is a fair rule which will give all Members the chance to 
demonstrate to their constituents that they either support or oppose 
term limits. This rule will, in my opinion, flush out the pretenders 
for the election cycle in 1996.
  In addition, under this rule Members will have the opportunity to 
vote on my amendment, which is the only one that clearly protects the 
term limit laws enacted in 22 States in this country. Thousands of 
dedicated individuals gathered signatures on petitions in parking lots 
all across the country. Twenty-five million people have cast ballots in 
favor of imposing term limits on Members of Congress from their States.
  My amendment is the only one which will clearly protect the hard work 
and wishes of these people. I thank the leadership for making this 
amendment in order, and urge all of my colleagues to support this very 
fair rule, but no matter which version emerges from the Queen of the 
Hill procedure, I urge all my colleagues to vote for term limits on 
final passage. The people want it. The time has come. Please vote for 
term limits, no matter which version emerges.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of term 
limits, but I likewise rise in opposition to this rule. I would like to 
explain briefly why.
  As we look at the term limits debate, Mr. Speaker, there are 
basically three issues that arise. Unfortunately, I do not believe that 
we have a clear shot at a vote on any version that separates the three 
issues.
  The first issue is the number of years. Is it 6 years, is it 8 years, 
is it 12 years? We will have variations of the number of years to vote 
on.
  The second issue is preemption: Do we intend by a Federal 
constitutional amendment to say to the States that they shall not or 
that they shall be allowed to fix lower limits by their State law? I, 
for one, believe that they should have that option.
  The third issue is prior service, or retroactivity: Will terms that 
have previously been served prior to the ratification of a term limits 
amendment count, or will they not count?
  Recognizing early in this session that there was no clear 
constitutional amendment that set those propositions forth, on January 
27 of this year I, along with several of my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues, introduced a constitutional amendment which set a 12-year 
outer limit with specific language that said we did not preempt State 
statutes, that gave them right to set lower limits if they chose to do 
so, but that would not have retroactive effect.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the thing that comes closest to our 
proposition, which we did submit to the Committee on Rules and which 
was rejected, will be the Hilleary amendment. However, the Hilleary 
amendment will say 12 years outer limit, specific reference to the 
States to pass lower limits if they choose to do so, but will give 
prior service of those 22 States that have enacted State laws those 
retroactive effects, so by the time this constitutional amendment would 
be ratified under the Hilleary version, we very likely will have 225 
Members of this House who will be operating under those statutes of the 
22 States, and possibly somewhere in excess of 160 of them may already 
have their terms expired.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should have had a clear-cut shot at a 
proposition that would say 12 years outer limit, specifically, we do 
not preempt State statutes, and everybody stands on the same footing. 
If it is going to be retroactive, in my opinion, even though I am not 
one of those 22 States and it will not apply to me, I think it is not 
fair to our colleagues from those 22 States to say that ``Your time in 
service in office is the only one that will have effect.'' That to me 
is not putting us all on the same footing. For that reason, I will vote 
against the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], 
who I must point out has been the architect of one of the amendments 
that we are not going to specifically debate, but has been enfolded 
into some others. She has been very generous in that context, and not 
only that, she has been a real advocate of this issue for a long time. 
I congratulate her on that.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am the sponsor of the 8-year term-
limits bill. In addition to my own State of Florida, Ohio, Missouri, 
and Massachusetts have all passed 8-year limits on their Members of 
Congress.
  While this rule does not provide for a vote on my specific 8-year 
proposal, it does respect the rights of my State and the 21 other 
States with term-limits laws and that is why I support it.
  All but one of the amendments made in order under this rule preserve 
States' abilities to pass 8-year limits. Phil Handy, chairman of the 
``Eight Is Enough'' term-limits campaign in Florida, has endorsed this 
rule in a letter to the Speaker.
  It is unfortunate that the media and term-limits opponents have 
focused on the differences between term-limits supporters over the 
numbers of 6, 8, or 12 years.
  I hope that my support of this rule clarifies once and for all that 
the only difference that really exists is the one between those who 
support term limits and those who do not.
  This rule will make sure that distinction is perfectly clear when we 
vote on final passage.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this rule, not necessarily because I 
think the rule is good or bad, but I just prefer not to have term 
limits on the floor at all. I oppose them, and therefore oppose the 
vehicle to bring them to the floor, and thus oppose this rule.
  [[Page H3837]] Mr. Speaker, I oppose term limits because I am against 
any abridgment of the right of voters to choose. Term limits limit the 
right of voters to choose. I am not so arrogant to think that I am 
better at this than James Madison, or the other Founders of the 
Constitution, who were very careful to protect the right of the 
citizens of the United States of America to select their 
representatives. That is a critical right in this representative form 
of Government. We should protect, not diminish it.
  Term limits do not restrict the authority of the Federal Government. 
They do restrict the rights of the citizens. Term limits do not 
increase the power of the voter. They enhance the raw authority of 
lobbyists. They enhances the power of career congressional staff. They 
enhances the authority of bureaucrats. If we want ever stronger 
executive branch Government and ever more powerful Presidents, this 
enhances the Presidency at the expense of the people's House.
  This pedestrian effort to change the wisdom that the Founders of this 
country put into the basic document of this land is wrong. However, 
there is one good thing about having this bill on the floor. The 
American people are going to learn something about hypocrisy. Yes, they 
are going to learn something about hypocrisy.
  Any Member of this House who wants to vote for limiting themselves to 
six terms or 12 years may do so and if they vote for it and they have 
served here more than 12 years, 12 years or more, they should quit. 
Otherwise, the American people might claim some hypocrisy among those 
Members of the House.
  We will also have an opportunity to limit the terms to three, no more 
than 6 years. Those Members who vote for it, whether it passes or it 
does not, should quit at the end of their third term. To do less might 
be seen by the American people as hypocrisy, and I, for one, would 
agree with them. I think we are about to separate the hypocrites from 
the others.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], an extremely 
important Member who holds down the end of the dais of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee I am 
proud to stand in support of this rule. For the first time ever, 
Congress will finally vote on a constitutional amendment limiting the 
number of terms an elected Representative can serve.
  The American people have become increasingly disillusioned with their 
elected officials, and with good cause. Despite the fact that 8 out of 
10 Americans support term limits, for years the Democrat-controlled 
Congress ignored the will of the people and arrogantly refused to even 
debate the issue.
  But, when the American people swept a new majority into the House for 
the first time in 40 years, they were assured that not only would 
Congress debate the issue, we would bring it to a vote within the first 
100 days. Today we are here to fulfill that promise.
  As the term limit debate has developed this year, I have been struck 
that those most vigorously supporting retroactive term limits are the 
very same Members who worked to block consideration of term limits in 
the past. Out of the 22 State-passed term limits, not one has been made 
retroactive. In fact, only one State has put a retroactive term limit 
on the ballot, Washington State, and that initiative was defeated.
  Since I was curious to know what these colleagues had previously said 
about making term limits retroactive, I obtained a copy of the 
transcript from hearings held on November 18, 1993, and June 29, 1994, 
by the Subcommittee on Civil and constitutional Rights of the Committee 
on the Judiciary the only hearings on this issue prior to the 104th 
Congress. I went through the transcript page by page and I need to 
point out that I could not find a single reference or discussion on 
making term limits retroactive.
  Three years ago my State of Utah passed a 12-year congressional term 
limit. In fact, we are the only State in which the legislature acted to 
pass term limits. The Founding Fathers never intended for congressional 
service to be a lifetime job. They correctly envisioned a citizen 
legislature that would pass laws and then return to the private sector 
to live under those laws. Instead, we ended up with a Congress that had 
a 90 percent re-election rate for the last 10 years--the same period 
during which our national debt skyrocketed--and an average tenure of 27 
years for the previous House leadership.
  The strength of the grass-roots term limits movement expresses the 
American people's frustration with the status quo. They are fed up with 
Congress' free-wheeling spending habits. They want us to bring the 
deficit and the Federal debt under control. A constitutional amendment 
imposing congressional term limits will take us a step in the right 
direction and break down the elite power structure that too many in 
Congress have enjoyed for too long.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support final passage.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of term limits.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. This rule proves 
to me that the Republican leadership has no intention of passing term 
limits this week.
  You see, the Republicans promised the American people a vote on term 
limits in the Contract With America. But ever since the elections, they 
have approached the pending term limits vote just like Goldilocks 
tested her porridge in the bears' cabin.
  Some of them do not like 6 year limits--this porridge is too hot.
  Some of them do not like 12 year limits--this porridge is too cold.
  Well guess what, Republicans, it will not take the American people 
very long to figure out that you did not try very hard to find an 
option that was just right for everyone. Instead, you crafted a 
confusing, repetitive rule, that would divide the votes enough to 
sabotage final passage.
  You might as well stop the debate now. Because term limits cannot 
pass under this rule, so why bother with the charade?

                              {time}  1600

  Get with it. There are Members of the Republican Party who do not 
want term limits. It is all a big joke to pass the Contract With 
America.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible support of 
this rule where Members can now put their mouth where their vote is and 
vote for term limits. It is badly needed.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic occasion. Today, we begin debate on a 
term-limits constitutional amendment. The House has never before voted 
on term-limit legislation, let alone a term-limits constitutional 
amendment. In fact, the House has never even had the chance to debate 
term limits before. I am very excited that we in Congress will finally 
get a chance to debate and vote on term-limit legislation and make this 
Congress more responsive, and, more importantly, more responsible to 
the American people.
  In recent years, term-limit proposals have become increasingly 
popular among the American people, having overwhelming support--
especially with people frustrated with Government gridlock at the 
Federal level.
  Since 1990, 21 of 24 States that have the initiative process have 
passed ballot measures limiting congressional terms. And these 
initiatives have passed with 60 to 70 percent of the vote. There are 
now 22 States with congressional term limits. In fact, I have 
introduced term-limit legislation for the last 8 years here in 
Congress.
  Opponents of term limits will point to the 1994 elections as a reason 
against any term-limit legislation. But I would point to the last 10, 
15, and 20 years where the reelection rate of Members of Congress was 
well over 90 percent. Incumbency provides an artificial advantage to 
Members; an advantage the Framers of our Constitution never intended.
  But I think the most compelling reason for term limits is the almost 
$5 trillion debt that this entrenched Congress has accumulated. This 
debt was accumulated because Congress could not prioritize its spending 
and could not say no to some of the unnecessary spending programs we 
have here.
  [[Page H3838]] Congress has not been able to balance its budget since 
1969. If fact, this year's budget deficit is growing over $500 million 
a day. This kind of irresponsible governing is robbing our children and 
grandchildren of their future. Yet Congress was not able to pass a 
balanced budget amendment this year. For that reason alone, I think we 
should pass term limits.
  It is my hope that term limits will go a long way toward bringing 
back the citizen-statesman: Someone who came to Congress, not to get 
reelected, but to govern. Someone able to get the Federal Government's 
fiscal house in order.
  This is why I believe term limits are necessary and I urge strong 
support of the rule and the term-limits constitutional amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, again I want to reiterate what the gentlewoman 
from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] said. It is curious that the minority, that 
used to be the majority, when they were majority and they were talking 
about term limits, retroactivity never showed up, so we are a little 
astonished that that seems to be the main menu today.
  But in any event, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] chairman of the subcommittee, who 
has done yeoman's work.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for consideration of a 
constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Members of the U.S. 
Senate and House of Representatives.
  In keeping with the Republican Contract With America this rule 
provides for votes on proposed constitutional amendments to limit the 
terms of Members. This is the first time in the history of this Nation 
that the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the issue of 
limiting the terms of Members of the House and Senate. Specifically, 
the contract promises, and this rule provides for, votes on a 
constitutional amendment to limit Senators and House Members to 12 
years of service in each body, the McCollum amendment, and an amendment 
to limit Senators to 12 years and House Members to 6 years of service, 
the Inglis amendment. In addition, the rule provides for consideration 
of two additional amendments which will allow the Members to fully 
debate issues of concern, including application of the limits to 
sitting Members of Congress prior to ratification, the so-called 
retroactivity issue, and the effect of the proposals on State-enacted 
term limits.
  Mr. Speaker, 22 states have adopted term limits for their Members of 
Congress. The American people have grown tired of entrenched incumbents 
controlling their lives from Washington. Term limits are in keeping 
with this Nation's tradition of democracy and freedom. Term limits will 
give power back to the States and to the people to run their own lives 
and make their own decisions. This Congress must listen to the people 
of this Nation and take action now on this critical issue. I urge an 
``aye'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, at the moment we do not have any other 
speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], another 
colleague of mine. He is known as the engineer of the term limits 
momentum, a man who deserves to be heard on this subject.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a historic occasion. We are about to vote 
on a rule to bring before this Congress for the first time in history, 
as my colleague from Florida, Mr. Canady, just said, a vote on the 
floor of the House of Representatives on the question of limiting the 
terms of Members of the U.S. House and Senate. This is historic in many 
ways.
  The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned a Congress today 
that is a full-time, career-oriented Congress. If we are going to 
control this career orientation, if we are going to put some restraints 
on the desire of Members of this body by the natural propensities that 
people have to want to be reelected and to try to please every interest 
group that is out there in decisions like on the budgets, we simply 
must have term limits, we must limit the lengths of time somebody can 
serve in the House and Senate.
  If we are going to put a permanent rule in place, not just a rule 
passed by the Republicans as we did this year when we got in power, but 
put it in permanently to limit the amount of time somebody can serve as 
chairman of a full committee or serve in the leadership in key 
positions to something responsible like 6 years, then we have to have 
term limits, something that is in the Constitution of the United 
States. There are going to be a number of options as to what they are, 
but the bottom line is whatever that is the American people, more than 
70 percent, often as high at 80 percent who support term limits should 
hold every one of us accountable at the polling place next year to vote 
for the final passage of this particular proposal, whatever the term 
limit is. I happen to favor 12 and 12, 12 for the House and 12 in the 
Senate and that it be permanent. That is my proposal. It is not 
retroactive and it will protect the States, I believe, under a decision 
that is going to be rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court shortly.
  In my judgment it would be a very bad deal if there were a lesser 
number of years for House Members, as some propose, because it would 
make the House a weaker body vis-a-vis the Senate.
  I also think the idea of granting permanently in the Constitution the 
right to States to decide what the term limits might be under a 12-year 
cap might be wrong. You would always end up with some States having 6 
or 8 or some other number of years and that would be bad public policy.
  My judgment also is with 22 States having passed term limits without 
retroactivity, and the one having come up in Washington and having 
voted it down, retroactivity would be a bad idea.
  I think we need to have a simple, straightforward 12 for the House 
and Senate, uniformity as much as possible in the Nation and hopefully 
when the Supreme Court is done that will be the result.
  Most important we need term limits, we need to limit the time people 
can serve. We need to restore to this body the checks and balances the 
Founding Fathers envisioned who never could have seen instead of 
serving 2 at most, we are now serving year round and instead of having 
citizen legislators who conduct their own businesses, we actually have 
rules that prohibit us from earning money out in professions like law 
and accounting and so forth.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest of terms to vote the rule out 
that gives us that opportunity. The Democrats did not let us have a 
vote in 40 years. Now we are going to have a chance to have one. I urge 
my colleagues to vote yes on final passage.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If I have any time remaining, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman 
says when people go to the polls they ought to vote based on whether or 
not their Member voted for term limits. Should they also vote whether 
the Member has been in longer than they voted?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Eighty percent of the American public favor term 
limits. They will have that choice.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no particular problem with the 
rule. It is the subject of the rule to which I object: term limits. I 
know all the standard arguments that if we have term limits the 
unelected bureaucracy, the career staff that are here year after year, 
will run the institution and not the people's chosen representatives, 
and that the professional lobbyists will become even more important 
because they will be here year after year and not the people's chosen 
representative who will be in the revolving door. But I will tell you 
this. The most compelling argument against term limits is 
[[Page H3839]] this: The compelling mission of Government is to expand 
our options and choices, not limit them.
  I have not had the advantage of conversations with our Founding 
Fathers, so I cannot tell my colleagues what they would say. But I know 
what they said, and they said we should not have term limits.
  The arrogance of Washington, the people in the shadows of the 
Capitol, telling those people out in the real world that we are now 
going to impose new conditions on them to choose whomever they wish to 
entrust with their representational responsibilities.
  I oppose term limits. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that the American people want more 
than productive change, it is an end to hypocrisy and gamesmanship when 
it comes to Government reform.
  And that is what this rule is about. It is the ultimate game of hide 
and seek. It offers phony term limits proposals that Members can hide 
behind. It's so gamed to lose that by design voters will not be able to 
seek the truth after the debate. It's the big duck.
  The American people should not be mistaken. Term limits will not 
prevail because Republicans have so gamed this process that it never 
really had a chance. Let me explain.
  First off, the Republican rules committee has prevented all 
perfecting amendments. That is a travesty for Members who want to make 
honest any of the four alternatives that we will be voting on.
  Some Members like myself for instance, who believe that term limits 
will create a rise in amateurism in the institution, believe that if we 
are going to have term limits let's make them effective immediately, 
and not exempt current Members.
  That is right. Other than the Democratic substitute, none of the 
Republican alternatives apply to terms currently served by incumbents. 
The most restrictive one--the Inglis substitute--would allow me to 
serve 43 years in the House--43 years. The McCollum and Hilleary 
substitutes would allow me to serve 49 years in the House.
  Speaker Gingrich would be allowed to serve 37 years under Inglis. 
Under McCollum and Hilleary he would be allowed 31 years.
  And of all the Republican substitutes, only one--Hilleary--would 
preserve the States rights to do what they deem most appropriate when 
it comes to term limits.
  Finally, this rule totally denigrates the Judiciary Committee. The 
committee reported bill is not even made in order. The entire purpose 
of committees is to refine issues in a manner proper for floor 
consideration. This makes a mockery of that.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a fraud and a game on the American people. 
Let us defeat it and get on with an honest debate, not a game of hide 
and seek.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], chairman of the 
always powerful Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I want to make it 
clear from the outset I am for the term limit that was placed or that 
was put in place by our Founding Fathers, that is a 2-year term limit. 
It is called an election.
  It seems to me that utilizing their constitutional voting rights, the 
voters can have and will continue to achieve Thomas Jefferson democracy 
by throwing the rascals out if they so choose.
  What the term limit says basically is the voters, because of many 
reasons, are not up to this job and should be denied the right to send 
somebody back.
  But the basic point I think is this: If in fact this House of 
Representatives is in such a crisis to the extent that we must deny the 
voters the right to reelect their representatives, if in fact the 
institution is in such a chaotic state that we must arbitrarily take 
away the right of voters after 6 or 12 years, then surely the people 
responsible, the guilty parties, are those who are the career 
politicians who have been here over 12 years and none of the proposed 
versions really include the retroactive version of term limits with 
sound policy. It is sort of like there is a terminal illness that 
abounds in this House but we are going to wait 12 years before we take 
the medicine.
  Why? Well, the why is simple; not many term limiters find it a 
pleasant task telling experienced Members they are part of the problem 
and it is time to say adios.
  So to me, wrapping yourself in the banner of a counterproductive 
reform is bad enough but exempting ourselves from these reforms does 
not represent truth in term limits.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair would inform the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] that he has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate and hearing some 
of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle criticize Democrats 
because of their retroactive proposal, let us make it very, very clear.
  My Democratic colleagues are not the ones who ran for Congress on the 
Contract With America all around the country talking about the need to 
bring in term limits. My Democratic colleagues were honest about it; 
they did not run on term limits. They have a proposal to put forward 
and if the Republicans are serious about term limits, we could pass a 
retroactive term limits bill.
  It is also amusing to see the Republican leadership who worked so 
hard on party loyalty and so many other issues in the first so-called 
100 days of this contract, to see where are they now in terms of 
demanding that party loyalty when it comes to determining which 
proposal to vote for. If some of the Republican leadership had the same 
interest, the same zeal, the same compassion to get at nutrition 
programs, for example, to get at some of the other Head Start programs, 
if they felt just as strongly about term limits as they have in some of 
these other devastating cuts, we would have term limits here this week.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], who has also been one of 
the main architects of the term limits movement and has an amendment 
that states this debate.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding the time, and I rise in strong support of this rule and to 
point out a couple of things. One, what a difference an election makes. 
Last time in this Congress, the last Congress, the 103d Congress, we 
begged and we pleaded and we scrapped and we got a hearing in a 
subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary.

                              {time}  1615

  And then we begged and we pleaded and we scraped some more, and we 
got a second little hearing. The chairman of that subcommittee was 
adamantly opposed to term limits. The chairman of our new subcommittee 
is very much for term limits. He was just here, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady], on the floor, speaking in favor of this rule.
  Last time, last Congress, the Speaker of this House of 
Representatives sued the people of the State of Washington saying that 
what they had done was unconstitutional in limiting his term in office. 
Now, we have a Speaker who is forthrightly for term limits and has 
brought this rule and this matter to the floor.
  What a difference an election makes in the history of a nation.
  And now we have got an opportunity. What a great rule. I am concerned 
to hear my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, not speak in favor 
of the rule. I think actually this is a tremendously successful 
crafting of this issue. The question is, of course, there are two 
arguments against it. One is it is restrictive, we did not make enough 
[[Page H3840]] options in order; and then the other attack is, well, it 
has got too many options in it, and the result is we will have 
confusion.
  I cannot imagine a more accountable vote on this matter than the way 
it is structured this way. Members are going to have to vote up or down 
on a 6-year bill. That happens to be my bill. Then they are going to 
have to vote up or down on a 12-year bill that allows State 
flexibility. They are going to have to vote up or down on a 12-year 
bill that is silent on preemption, and they are going to have to vote 
up or down on a 12-year bill that calls for retroactivity designed, by 
admission of its proponents, to be a poison pill designed to kill term 
limits.
  But in any event, we are going to have accountability in this 
Congress, and what a difference the American people are seeing. It 
truly is an exciting day in the history of this Congress.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, not to worry, those people that follow this 
great Chamber electronically with these new overhead shots and side-
angle shots, make sure my coat is OK in the back here, everybody is 
watching, and in their offices.
  The House floor looks deserted, but it is not. This is a hot issue.
  Now, about four speakers ago one of my colleagues said we 
unfortunately do not get to talk to the Founders, but that he was going 
to speak for them and say that the Founders were against term limits. 
Not my reading of what our Founders wrote.
  One of the great Founders, the oldest man in the Continental 
Congress, the great Dr. Benjamin Franklin, said it would be healthy to 
rotate citizens in and out of this Chamber on a regular basis. That is 
a simple word, ``rotation''; we use it all the time in modern America, 
and he said it would be healthy to return to the employer class, that 
is, the taxpayers that sometimes sit in our gallery, the 1.3 million 
that are watching us on C-SPAN. They are the employers, and we are the 
public servants.
  But here is something any Member can do walking through the Rotunda. 
What I will put in the Record at this point are the words of George 
Washington, right under his portrait, resigning his commission, about 
the theater of action, and his virtues and term limits, the father of 
term limits, George Washington.

       Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the 
     great theatre of action; and bidding an affectionate farewell 
     to this august body, under whose orders I have so long acted, 
     I here offer my commission and take my leave of all the 
     employments of public life.
       Thos. Mifflin, pres. Continental Congress (answered with 
     reverence.) Having defended the standard of liberty in the 
     new world; having taught a lesson to those who inflict 
     (oppression), and to those who feel oppression, you retire 
     from the great theater of action with the blessings of your 
     fellow-citizens; but the glory of your virtues will not 
     terminate with your military command, it will continue to 
     animate remotest ages.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear this is going to be an 
interesting debate. This is not something of the passion of the moment, 
though.
  We are talking about a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of the 
House, two-thirds of the Senate, three-quarters of the States and 
several years involved probably in the process.
  We are also talking about a phenomenon of tenure of more than 12 
years here. That is the standard in this that we are putting out.
  It took more than the first 100 years of the existence of Congress 
before the average tenure of any Member of the Members was 12 years. My 
distinguished friend from California mentioned that maybe we will not 
have an institutional memory; maybe staff will take over. Well, maybe 
staff has already taken over in some places, and maybe the 
institutional memory is not very good. But maybe most Americans think 
we have got enough Congress. Maybe a little less Congress would be 
better for America.
  That is something they seem to be saying.
  My friend from New York, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
said, ``It would be arrogant of D.C. to tell people how long they can 
vote for somebody.'' Would it be arrogant to ignore what 80 percent of 
the people of our country are asking us to bring up in debate? I think 
it would be.
  So we are going to have this debate. I agree, this is a particularly 
bony crow which may cause some choking come November. I still believe 
it is an honorable effort at debate.
  I urge approval of the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, what a difference an election makes. After 
years of hearing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
about real reform, the 104th Congress, under new leadership, is ready 
to break the partisan gridlock which has kept term limits off the floor 
of this House for too long. As part of our ongoing commitment to 
fulfilling the Contract With America, we bring to the floor today a 
constitutional amendment to limit the terms of House and Senate 
Members.
  And we do so under a fair and balanced rule which recognizes the 
seriousness of writing term limits into our Constitution. On March 15, 
the Committee on Rules granted a rule that provides for 3 hours of 
general debate. Following general debate, four amendments in the nature 
of a substitute will be considered for 1 hour each under a true ``king-
of-the-hill'' process--which means that the amendment receiving the 
most affirmative votes is considered as adopted and reported back to 
the House. This is a responsible rule, Mr. Speaker. Debate on the four 
substitutes, and the customary motion to recommit afforded to the 
minority, will allow the House to address the major issues associated 
with term limits, issues such as how many terms are appropriate, should 
States be permitted to set lower limits, and when should the term 
limitation take effect.
  Republicans have not backed away from our promise to the American 
people to bring the issue of term limits to the floor of the House. The 
term limits movement is clearly sweeping across the States, winning by 
impressive margins whenever and wherever it is on the ballot. Today, 22 
States have placed term limits on their Federal representatives,
 including my own home State of Ohio. By adopting this rule, the House 
will finally have the opportunity to debate an issue which is already 
the law of the land in almost half of the 50 States.

  It is my understanding that from 1789 to 1993, 177 proposals were 
introduced to limit congressional service. Not surprisingly, virtually 
all of these proposals died in committee. It was not until November 
1993, during the historic 103d Congress, that the House held its first 
hearing ever on the term limits issue. Today, when we pass this rule 
and begin debate, new history will be made. We are keeping our promise 
to have the first vote ever on the House floor on this important issue.
  While some of my closest colleagues in this body have made very 
articulate arguments against term limits, I remain absolutely convinced 
that term limits are not just necessary, but essential to making this 
institution more effective, more productive, and more representative of 
the American people. Just think of the many positive benefits which 
would result from term limits: an influx of fresh ideas and motivated 
people, a Congress closer to the citizens whom we are elected to serve, 
a greater emphasis on merit rather than seniority, and a better chance 
to guard against legislative gridlock. Mr. Speaker, limiting 
congressional terms is the key to genuine congressional reform.
  But despite the progress we have made on this issue, one of the 
leading advocates of term limits, the group U.S. Term Limits, has 
actively criticized many Members of the House for supposedly trying to 
water-down our contract's commitment to term limits. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. While each of us may prefer a certain version 
of term limits, or see one plan as being more practical than the other, 
we have consistently supported term limits.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a very productive 84 days so far in the 
104th Congress. The majority has kept its promise to bring the 
provisions of the contract to a vote on the House floor. And we have 
made meaningful congressional reform a top legislative priority. I urge 
my colleagues to adopt this balanced, responsible rule so that we can 
have fair debate on the revolutionary idea of term limits. Passage of 
this rule will be an important step toward responding to the voters' 
call for real change and putting an end to the reign of career 
politicians.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


  

                          ____________________