[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Zimmer). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote on what former Senator 
Howard Baker has called a bad idea whose time has apparently come. That 
idea, of course is term limits.
  Term limits will pass this body with a very large margin, although 
maybe not the two-thirds vote necessary. However, I know from private 
conversations and believe that there are quite a few members of this 
body who publicly are for this very bad idea but who privately are 
hoping that the legislation does not receive the two-thirds vote 
necessary.

                              {time}  2200

  I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that if ever there was an idea or 
something that corrects a problem that does not exist, that idea is 
term limits. Two hundred and three new members have been elected in 
just the last 2 years. Let me repeat that: 203 Members, almost half of 
this body, have been elected in just the last 2 years. We had 110 
freshmen elected 2 years ago. There were six Members, three of whom 
left to move into the President's cabinet and three others left for 
better jobs, and then 87 new Members were elected at the start of this 
Congress. So that is 203 new Members in just the last 2 years.
  This is the greatest turnover in the history of this Congress and in 
the history of this Nation, and that same turnover, very high rates of 
turnover, are occurring in elective offices all across this country.
  I mentioned Senator Howard Baker a moment ago, a man who is really 
one of my heroes and for whom I have the greatest respect. If we had 
had term limits in effect, we would not have had Senator Baker's 
greatest service to this country. We would not have had his
 service during the years he was minority leader and then majority 
leader of the U.S. Senate. We would not have had the service of Senator 
Everett Dirksen during his greatest service, or our own Speaker of the 
House, Newt Gingrich, who is in his 17th year. He would not be in the 
House if we had the term limits we would be talking about tomorrow. 
Roll Call, the newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, pointed out Great 
Britain would not had the service of Winston Churchill during World War 
II. His greatest moments of public service would not have taken place 
if term limits had been in effect in Great Britain.

  Term limits do not make sense. It makes no sense whatsoever to go to 
a great teacher and say that we know you are a great teacher and you 
are doing a wonderful job, but you have been here 6 or 8 or 12 years 
and we feel we should have new blood, or to do that same thing to a 
great nurse or a great engineer. If term limits should not be applied 
to other fields, they should not be applied to elected officials 
either.
  We already have term limits, the terms to which we are elected. We 
are elected to 2 year terms in this body, 6 years in the Senate. The 
voters can get rid of us very easily. Every other year we face the 
voters. Term limits are very undemocratic. They take away a little bit 
more control the people have over their own Government. They take away 
the right of the people to vote for whomever they want. I think it is 
part of this trend that these very liberal elitists have said for years 
``Take the politics out of this, take the politics out of that,'' and 
that sounds good on the surface. But if you take the politics out of 
everything, you take away the control of the people over their own 
Government, and term limits is just another part of that very dangerous 
trend.
  Term limits will strengthen the power of the unelected in this 
country. They will strengthen the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, the 
committee staffs. Already we have a Government of, by and for the 
bureaucrats, instead of one that is of, by and for the people. We need 
to reestablish the control of the people over their own Government, and 
term limits will do just the opposite.
  We need to solve the real problems of this country. Mr. Speaker, 
turnover in the Congress and in other elected offices is not one of 
those major problems that we face in this country today. I am one of 
the most conservative Members of this body, but I can tell you that 
term limits are not a conservative idea. Our Founding Fathers 
specifically rejected them, and even conservatives like the Libertarian 
columnist Lewellyn Rockwell and others are now saying term limits are a 
very, very bad idea. In fact I think they are a very radical idea, and 
I think they should be rejected, although I know that they are very 
popular because many people do not realize how much turnover there is 
and how much change is going on in this place and in other offices 
around the country.
  In no other field do we think that experience is a bad thing. People 
want an experienced surgeon when they go into have surgery, they want 
an experienced lawyer and so forth. So we need experience in public 
office as well.
  Some people had the mistaken impression that Dan Rostenkowski was a 
typical Member. He was not typical. I realize that term limits are 
popular and they are going to pass, but I think, as I said, that they 
correct a problem that does not exist, and I do not think they will 
solve the real problems that face this country.


                          ____________________