[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3857-H3858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SUPPORT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for adding a term limitation amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.
  At virtually every opportunity, American voters have demonstrated 
their preference for term limitation for their elected officials. They 
have seen too often how entrenchment of political power yields a 
political culture that is less responsive and less responsible.
  The Washington political and media culture has uniformly lined up in 
opposition to the term limits movement. That should be our first sign 
that the American people are on to something positive.
  The most frustrating aspect of listening to term limit opponents and 
most of the media has been their refusal to discuss this issue 
intelligently, but rather reject it out of hand. Much like the 
situation with the balanced budget amendment, opponents of term limits 
have relied on knee-jerk reactions against term limits rather than 
thoughtful discussion of the problems in the system and the need for 
systemic reform.
  So, I'd like to address some of the arguments against term limits 
individually:
  One, term limits would deprive the American people of experienced 
elected officials to address the Nation's problems.
  Of all the arguments against term limits, this is the one most often 
cited by thoughtful term limits opponents. What I would point out, 
however, is that Congress is enriched when it is filled by persons with 
experience in all walks of life--not just legislating.
  For too long, the way to real power inside Congress has been to come 
to Washington young and spend decades building up seniority.
  Too many districts have been represented by men or women who've spent 
more of their adult lives in Washington than in the district they are 
supposed to represent.
  By adopting term limits, a person who had worked successfully as a 
small business person, or a school teacher, or a homemaker could come 
to Washington later in life and still have the opportunity to play a 
major role in the process based on merit.
  Two, term limits opponents also argue that term limits restrict the 
choices of the voters, giving us less freedom.
  I think anyone who has ever looked at the reelection rates of Members 
of Congress immediately understands the weakness of this argument. Even 
in this last election more than 90 percent of the incumbent House 
Members who stood for reelection were returned to office.
  The fact of the matter is that it is extremely difficult to beat an 
incumbent except in extraordinary years. By placing a limit on length 
of service, virtually every congressional district in this country 
would become competitive because local political organizations would 
not wither away waiting for a 20-term Congressman to finally move 
along.
  Instead, Members would likely continue to face very competitive 
elections in their first few years after their election.
  However, instead of becoming isolated and entrenched, even the most 
popular incumbent would likely face challenges during his or her later 
terms by those interested running in the future.
  I believe that would drastically reduce the number of uncontested 
seats and contribute to a substantial increase in competitive races. 
That, not theoretical arguments about limiting choices, would be the 
real world impact of term limits.
  [[Page H3858]] Three, last year, we saw the embarrassing spectacle of 
long-time incumbents reduced to telling their electorates that they 
should be reelected strictly because of their seniority.
  This type of campaigning amounts to a threat to the very people these 
representatives were supposed to represent. It's like trying to make 
your own constituents an offer they can't refuse. That's not what this 
democracy should be about.
  Seniority has become the last refuge of a politician with nothing 
left to say. Term limits would hold our elected officials to a higher 
standard of political debate--policies, responsiveness, and 
accomplishments.
  Four, the final argument I would like to address is the claim that if 
we want to limit a politician's terms, we should vote that person out 
of office.
  The problem with this point is that a State with an entrenched 
incumbent often has a great incentive to keep that person in office for 
decades at a time. From a key committee position, one person 
representing less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the country's 
population can dominate an area such as appropriations, commerce, or 
defense policy for decades.
  That is the very type concentration of power that we have 
traditionally sought to avoid in this country. No one district, and no 
one State, should be able to hold the rest of America hostage to its 
agenda or the whims of its favorite son.
  One of the things that compelled me to run for Congress was that as a 
small businessman my family business was forced to pay tens of 
thousands of dollars to meet the dictates of entrenched incumbents here 
in Washington. I couldn't vote for these representatives who were 
dominating some of the committees that directly impacted my business, 
but I was paying the bill. I knew that passing term limits was one way 
to change that.
  The new Republican majority has taken a giant step forward in 
addressing this problem by limiting the terms of committee and 
subcommittee chairmen, as well as the Speaker of the House. But, we 
need to keep moving ahead.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Speaker, as this country moves into the 21st century, I believe 
that we will need the input and expertise of Americans from every 
background and profession. The argument against term limits places a 
premium on experience in Congress and discounts experience in every 
other part of life.
  That is a formula for a ruling class detached from those who they 
represent. That is the opposite of government of, by and for the 
people.
  Adoption of a term limitation constitutional amendment would return 
us to a true citizen legislature and help win back the faith of the 
American people in our democracy. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
version of term limits they support and vote ``yes'' on final passage 
of this resolution.

                          ____________________