[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3861-H3862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      TERM LIMITS VOTE IS HISTORIC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support term limits and to talk 
about what is going to happen out here tomorrow in a very historic 
vote.
  I have been involved with the term limits movement for many years 
now. It was quite lonely when I first came to Congress and introduced 
the first constitutional amendment for a 12-year term limit of House 
and Senate Members. We did not have very many supporting it then. In 
fact, as recently as the 102d Congress, just 3 or 4 years ago, we only 
had 33 Members of the House willing to say they were for term limits in 
an open and public fashion.
  In the last Congress, even though the now sophomore class had made 
its mark in the campaigns, many of them by advocating term limits, we 
only had 107 out of the 435 House Members willing to say they supported 
term limits.
  Tomorrow we are going to have a vote, and we have a shot at getting 
to the 290, the two-thirds necessary to pass a term limits 
constitutional amendment. I do not know whether we will get there or 
not, but we are going to have well over 200 who are going to vote for 
some version of term limits and, hopefully, for the final passage. I 
think that is truly remarkable progress.
  Whether it succeeds tomorrow or not, it is a big day, the first day 
in the history of the United States Congress to have such a debate and 
vote.
  In 40 years of Democrat control of this Congress, they never let a 
vote occur. And only in the last term that they held power did they 
even allow a hearing on the subject. Now we are going to get that 
opportunity that the American public by nearly 80 percent in poll after 
poll say they support.
  Interestingly enough, those Americans who are answering those poll 
questions are roughly divided in an even fashion, at about 50 percent 
Republicans and 50 percent Democrats. There is not a partisan matter 
involved in term limits. It is something the 
[[Page H3862]] American public has said they want for a long time. It 
is not a new thing.
  I just hope that when the sun sets on this vote tomorrow that we do 
get the 50 percent or so of the Democrats we need to have on that side 
of the aisle to vote with the, as the gentleman from Washington says, 
the better than 80 percent of the Republicans who are going to vote for 
this. We may get 85 or 90 percent before it is over with.
  The point is, we need to have a bipartisan effort in order to pass 
term limits. Now I have my own personal views on why we need them, and 
I have my own convictions on which version is preferable. I happen to 
believe deeply that term limits are important to stop the career 
orientation of Congress that has developed over the past 50 or 60 years 
as we have gone to a full-time, year-round job that was never 
envisioned by the Founding Fathers who saw Members serving only a 
couple of months a year and going home to their businesses.
  We do not do that anymore. We are not likely to. As we have developed 
this full-time Congress, Members have learned to give up jobs back 
home. Most Members do not have outside incomes. They are dependent upon 
this. This is their career today.
  That has changed the attitude of Members in a way that is not 
necessarily desirable. While some Members can stand above that, many 
Members, I think, consciously or subconsciously try to please virtually
 every interest group that comes to Washington seeking assistance in 
their voting pattern in order to get reelected. The idea being, if you 
do not displease anybody, those who have the squeaky wheel are going to 
vote for you, you are going to get reelected, and you are going to be 
able to come back and continue your, quote, career.

  I do not think that is healthy. That is not healthy in areas like 
balanced budgets where we do not get there because every interest that 
is in a budget is supported by some interest group. It is not the money 
that is involved. It is the votes and the concerns about reelection.
  We need to mitigate that. Term limits would do that, plus it would 
place a permanent restraint on the opportunity for anybody in the 
future to ever become a committee chairman and serve 15 or 20 
consecutive years as was the case until the Republicans took power this 
time and put it in the rule to say you can only serve 6 years as a 
committee chairman, and it would assure fresh blood out here every time 
when we have an election cycle and a regular turnover.
  Now as far as the preference is concerned. I happen to prefer my 
version, which is 12 years in the House, 12 years in the Senate. I 
think shorter limits in the House than in the Senate would weaken the 
body vis-a-vis the Senate.
  I also think you need to have about six years here before you have 
the experience that is needed to be a committee chairman or to be in 
leadership.
   I also think it would be preferable to have uniformity throughout 
the Nation instead of, as one of my other brethren offering an 
amendment would have, an amendment that leaves it to the States. Once 
we put a 12-year cap, you would wind up then with a hodgepodge of some 
States 6 years, some states 8, some States 12 for on ad infinitum. I do 
not think that would be good public policy in the end.
  But the Supreme Court under my proposal will ultimately make the 
decision as regards to the present Constitution and its interpretation 
when they decide the Arkansas case shortly.

                              {time}  2045

  If they decide that the States have this power today, the amendment I 
am proposing would not disturb that. On the other hand, if they decide 
that it indeed is unconstitutional for the States to do what they have 
been doing, there would be established by my 12 and 12 amendment a 
uniform national standard which I think is preferable.
  Then there are those who argue that well, retroactivity would be a 
good idea. I do not think it is a good idea. Twenty-two of the States 
that have adopted the term limits limitation around the country have 
said no to retroactivity, and the one State that had an opportunity to 
vote on it, Washington State, voted it down. It is like with tax laws 
or other kind of legislation out there, retroactivity is not a good 
idea.
  There are Members of the other side of the aisle, some well 
intentioned on this issue, but some very much opposed to term limits, 
promoting this particular legislation just to create mischief, because 
they know it would cost votes on final passage.
  We need to work very hard on whatever final version comes out here 
after we finish the amendment process tomorrow, and I am going to do 
this, to advocate my position ardently among the positions out there. 
But I am going to vote for whatever is left standing out here, and I 
urge any Member to do that. If you do not do it, I think the voters 
back home ought to hold you accountable on the vote you have on final 
passage of whatever is here tomorrow. It is our chance to get term 
limits that better than 80 percent of the American public strongly 
want. So I urge a favorable vote tomorrow on final passage, and, of 
course, I would prefer it if you vote for my 12-year version.


                          ____________________