[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3873-H3877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2230

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I do not understand the rationale and I will 
yield to the gentlewoman and then I want to talk about something else, 
I certainly hope the gentlewoman would stay, a little bit about term 
limits because I have heard some very interesting discussions tonight 
about that issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Well, I thank the gentleman and I could not help but 
just be absorbed by your recounting of your life's history because I 
wonder whether or not because of the missing life experiences maybe of 
some who would argue differently than what we would argue whether this 
is why we are where we are today.
  I certainly was a beneficiary of a summer job and took as much pride 
as you have articulated in working in the city's parks during the 
summer, having that check, but most importantly the responsibility, the 
uniform, the self-esteem. Let me say a great big thanks to all the 
parks workers throughout this Nation.
  The important thing is that we are speaking in essence out of two 
sides of our mouth and that is that we ask on one side, stand up and be 
counted and be
 independent and then we tell our children and I have been on the local 
box station if you will, meaning I have gone to where the youngsters 
listen and talk to them in between their music to tell them that this 
is something they need to take up.

  The outcry that I have gotten from a parent who is a single parent 
who says Johnny has been off the streets now for 4 years straight 
because he has had a summer job, and you know what is even better than 
that, you know what is even better than that is Johnny's younger 
brother is aspiring to get the summer job like Johnny, not aspiring to 
hit the streets to join the gang that is right next door but aspiring 
like Johnny.
  As I conclude, let me simply say what the misnomer is. We go back to 
welfare. I think we all have seen this documentary about hoops and 
basketball, a true story about youngsters off the street and aspiring 
to be basketball players and there were some good endings for those 
youngsters in there. The one point that really got me is when the 
mother said, ``Do you know we live off of $300 a month?'' Because there 
is some myth about how much people are living off of.
  Then just to reflect on the State of Texas where an AFDC recipient 
with one child gets $184 a month, so let us not fool ourselves to think 
that these folks are rolling in dollars. All of these people would far 
benefit from cutting the deficit.
  Then when we talk about some sense of independence, we have got the 
other side of the coin. Say you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps, 
you got out of high school, how would you get to college? Summer jobs 
as well as student loans. Do you know what is going to be cut with 
these tax cuts? We are talking about cutting an enormous amount, half 
of all of the students attending college would be cut in terms of their 
student loans or their opportunities to go to college.
  I do not know about you because I understand that we have come from 
different States, but I can assure you how much that will hurt the 
community that I come from and how important it is to our students who 
are seeking independence, some of whom have come from homes where they 
were dependent upon welfare and are now seeking an opportunity through 
education and look what is happening to them.
  So I thank the gentleman for yielding but I had to come and join you 
and certainly you are raising another issue that I hope I will briefly 
be able to share with you on that because I think that impacts, if you 
will, how we run government.
  I also have not heard the reasoned hue and cry on the other issue you 
just mentioned about what we do about people who are in office when I 
believe truly in the process of voting people in and voting people out. 
But I will say it is important for people to have a history of what has 
been done previously by government, people who can bring insight to 
these issues and reflect upon their life experiences to share.
  [[Page H3874]] I hope that we will have the opportunity as this goes 
to the U.S. Senate, the rescissions bill that we have talked about and 
now as we move into the tax cuts, that we will have an opportunity 
through conference, as I am working very hard to ensure that some of 
these very devastating dollars that have been removed that are not 
doing anything for the deficit will come back to help people who are 
seeking to be independent.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman and we hope we are 
both hopeful that in the Senate there is a much more deliberative 
debate on these
 issues. Even if they are not cleared up in the Senate, we would hope 
that in conference that these issues are cleared up to the best 
interests of all the people across America. Even if they are not 
cleared up in that arena, we would hope that the President takes a 
very, very strong look at these rescissions as well as this Personal 
Responsibility Act and make sure that children and infants are not 
penalized as a result of some fault of some third party.

  I would like to at this time talk a little bit about term limits. As 
the gentlewoman from Texas knows, tomorrow we will be debating the 
issue of term limits on this floor. We will decide whether or not the 
terms of Members of Congress should be limited.
  I have been tussling with the idea of term limits now for about 7 
years because when I was a member of the State Senate in Louisiana, 
being Chairman of Senate Governmental Affairs, I had to deal with the 
issue of term limits and wanted to give the best possible opportunity 
for those who felt that term limits was a good idea for America.
  But no one, even idea, has been able to convince me that term limits 
is good for America. You know when I walked into this Congress on 
January of this year, I raised my right hand and said that I would 
support and defend the Constitution. And every Member of this body said 
the same thing, we would support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States of America, this Constitution. I look at this 
Constitution and article I, section 2 of this Constitution says in no 
uncertain terms, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of 
Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''
  It is very clear in no uncertain terms. That is article I, section 2. 
I do not understand how one can say they are for term limits and not 
realize that term limits are already in the law. I think it is an 
insult to the average voter's intelligence to tell a voter in America 
that they do not have a right to select a candidate of their choice and 
we ought to have some self-imposed term limit.
  Well, I have decided to do something tonight that I would hope that 
all of my colleagues take heed to. For those individuals who believe 
and truly believe in term limits, we can have a self-imposed term limit 
and we can start term limitation tonight and all you have to do is sign 
this term limit pledge card.
  I want to make sure that every Member of Congress receives this 
pledge card because I am sick and tired of Members walking into that 
well and saying to the American people, we need to limit the terms of 
Members of Congress and many times those Members who walk into the well 
are Members who have served for 16 or 20 years. I do not understand 
that. I think that is what hypocritical to say the least.
  This pledge card is very simple. There is nothing complex about it. 
``I,'' and you put your name in it on the line, ``pledge to the people 
of,'' whatever district you represent, whatever State you represent, 
``that I will not seek reelection to the United States House of 
Representatives after'' X ``number of terms,'' signed by the Member and 
dated.
  And we put it in the Congressional Record, and then every Member 
should live up to that term limit commitment.
  You know my term is limited and your term is limited. You cannot 
serve over 2 years in the House of Representatives without the approval 
of the people of Texas.
  I as a Member from Louisiana. I cannot serve in this Congress after 2 
years without the approval of the people, the Fourth Congressional 
District of Louisiana. When I raise my right hand, I take the oath of 
office for 2 years and 2 years only, and then I have to go back to my 
district and get reelected. So that, in itself, is a term limit.
  Now what puzzles me is how people say, well, term limits or the lack 
thereof is the reason why we have so many problems in this Congress.
  Well, the last three elections, over 200 new Members of Congress were 
elected. Two hundred new Members of the House now reside in this House 
of Representatives today. And they were elected in the last three 
elections, last three elections. The last three elections brought 200 
new faces to this institution. You were one of them. I am one of them.
  What happened in the Senate? The past 10 years 55 new Senators are 
now sitting in that august body down the hall, new Members of the 
United States Senate.
  Now, if I am a Member of Congress and if I am doing my job and I do 
everything that I am supposed to do as a Member of Congress, then the 
people of Louisiana then make the decision as to whether or not I will 
return to Washington, DC, as their Congressman.
  But for this Congress to tell people in Louisiana in the Fourth 
Congressional District that they do not have a right to send Cleo 
Fields to Congress or Sheila Jackson-Lee from Texas, irrespective of 
what kind of job performance she had for the past 2 years or 4 years, 
is wrong. And it is taking away the voice of people.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I would be happy to yield.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. You have raised several important points, and I 
think tomorrow we will have additional time to grapple with these 
issues. But I, too, have kept an open mind on this whole question of 
term limits, looking for the higher ground in terms of the real reasons 
behind what has been labeled as a movement to ensure that we have term 
limits. And each time I seek an answer, it comes back simply flat, and 
let me tell you why.
  You have hit on a very salient point. We are now debating this whole 
issue of let the States do it, the local communities do it. What this 
debate simply says is that we do not appreciate and furthermore have no 
respect for the local constituents of each individual Member's 
district. We have no respect for them.
  For we will tell them that what they will have to vote on if we do a 
term limit amendment is they will have to not vote on a Member that 
they may want to vote on. They may even want to cast a no vote against 
the Member, meaning that they would like to vote for someone else with 
the Member being on the ballot. Just think of it. They do not each have 
that opportunity.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentlewoman would yield.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. You make a very good point.
  I have heard some arguments that we are to send Members back home, 
and they need to live with the people and live in the community and 
work with the folk in their respective communities. And then if they 
choose to come back then they could run for office after they sit out 
for 2 years. Well, my God, I do not know about you, but I go home every 
week.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I am right with you.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I am not removed from the people of the 
Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana. I return home every week. I 
meet with people. And at the point, if I ever get to the point that I 
am not returning home and I am not taking care of the business of the 
people of the Fourth District of Louisiana, they have every right and 
the responsibility to go to the polls and vote me out of office.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Be happy to be yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I respect my constituents and, you are very, very 
right, spend a great deal of time making sure that I interact with the 
great constituents of the Eighteenth Congressional District.
  [[Page H3875]] But what I argue is that the real key to the Founding 
Fathers in terms of the laymen Congress was the whole concept of 
responsibility and accessibility. I mean, that is what they wanted to 
ensure when they designed this format. And so that should be the 
criteria by which you determine whether you have someone you want to 
return or someone that you do not want to return.
  With that in mind, the interaction with one's constituents is the 
term limits in and of itself that will be determined every 2 years by 
constituents saying to you, no, you have not done what we have asked 
you to do. And, therefore, I raise the question what is this false term 
limits, in essence?
  Because there may be constituents who you have who say, I like the 
method, the procedure, the way you are doing your business but, more 
importantly, the way you are representing us. And it would be a 
disservice to us if we did not get a chance to vote for you or against 
you based upon our pleasure or displeasure.
  We are putting in a false and imaginary buffer between the voting 
people, the voting public, citizens, owners of the Constitution, and 
their choice for who they would want to represent them.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentlewoman would yield.
  She mentioned the laymen's legislature and the citizens' legislature, 
and I have heard those terms throughout the night. But what I find, I 
find a fault with this argument of the citizens' legislature, laymen's 
legislature which I would think this legislature should be and every 
legislature should be. And if it is not, then the people should make 
the decision as to how it should be, what it should be made of and who 
it should be made of.
  But even States that passed term limits, I find it hard to believe, 
let us take, say, the State of California, passed term limits. And, by 
the same token, they talk about how they want to give greater access to 
people and then they are not implementing the motor voter law, for 
example.
                              {time}  2245

  Giving access to people is by making people a part of this process, 
and I find it almost unfair to say we want to give people more access 
to this process and not try to make the voting process as easy as 
possible, and the voter registration process as easy as possible, 
because if you really want a citizens' legislature, for example, then 
you should do everything you can to make sure that citizens have access 
to the ballot. You cannot have access to the ballot box in this country 
if you are not registered to vote.
  So one of the elements of giving people access to the ballot box is 
by making sure that we have voter registration laws that afford every 
citizen the opportunity to partake in the voting process and then after 
we make sure every citizen can register and we do not have all of these 
prohibitions and all of these complicated ways of registering to vote, 
then we ought to make sure on election day every citizen is afforded 
that opportunity to go to the polls and vote on election day, and for 
example, and I will yield back to the gentlewoman, in this past 
Presidential election, only 35 percent or 37 percent of the people 
voted. On the average, the maximum we get is 50 percent of the people 
voting in America. So if you really want to give the citizens of 
America more access, you create laws that are conducive to giving more 
access to exercise their constitutional right, registering to vote and 
then actually exercising their right to vote on election day.
  We have four States, as the gentlewoman knows, we have four States in 
America right now that are refusing to implement the motor voter law, 
but yet we want a citizens' legislature. Well, afford every citizen in 
this country the opportunity to go and register to vote in the least 
complicated format possible, and then encourage them to go and vote on 
election day. Then maybe we will see some differences in this Congress 
and in State legislatures across the country if we really want a 
citizens' legislature.
  Let us have voter registration drives in every housing facility in 
this country, every public housing facility; when you register for 
section 8, you ought to register to vote at the same time. Public 
transportation ought to be an element of voter registration. Then we 
ought to encourage people to go out and vote, and maybe we would change 
this Congress and more so-called citizens and laymen will be in the 
halls of this body and other bodies across this country.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I wish people would listen to the intent of the 
discussion here, because one of the interesting points, and I think 
before we have had an opportunity to address the Speaker, is that we 
find out that this issue is not one that falls along philosophical 
lines or party lines. There is going to be a vigorous debate, because 
this is an issue that goes to the very crux of the Constitution.
  This should not be labeled as a contract issue, Contract on America, 
with America. I am not sure what the thrust of it is.
  You have got conservative Republicans and others who understand what 
the Constitution is truly saying, and that is a representative body of 
government, in fact, a republic, and I always remind my constituents 
when we say republic, we are not necessarily labeling a party, 
Republican, Democratic. It is a form of government that is 
representative.
  What helps you be more representative than to encourage people to 
make their choices to, as you have said, open up the opportunities of 
registration? I am
 certainly a supporter and advocate of the motor vehicle legislation 
and working hard to ensure that it is working in the State of Texas, 
but the key is that let us expand the places where people can register. 
Let us ensure that our educational system has a real body of 
instruction that deals with the Constitution and voter participation, 
and how to access your elected officials. That is where I think the 
thrust should go.

  Because one of the interesting things that I think should be noted, 
and I share it with my constituents, and might I add, I certainly 
welcome all the representatives or constituents that come in on issues 
to my office, that means the businesses that certainly have those 
prepared and paid individuals that come in. I respect them. But I also 
recognize many times there are constituents who are home in your 
district who do not get to come to Washington, DC. They do not get to 
make their voices heard by way of sitting in your offices in 
Washington, DC.
  How do they get to be heard? One, you interact with them when you 
come to the district and you better make sure that is a realistic and 
viable pat of what you do for your constituents. The other way they 
inform you of their voices is through the vote and through the vote 
every 2 years, being able to vote for you or against you, not by an 
artificial term limits that comes in and intervenes between that 
citizen, the purest sense of the word, going to the ballot box, not 
being told by intervening law that they have the very power in their 
hands to send you back from the great State of Louisiana or, if I am 
sent back from the great State of Texas, that is the key that I think 
that we are missing when we engage ourselves in this very benign, in 
term limits of its meaning, but certainly very devastating debate in 
terms of what it does of interfering with the democratic process.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Does the gentlewoman know that many of the 
individuals who say they are proponents of term limits are some of the 
same, very individuals, who are on a bill to repeal motor voter? I 
mean, I just find it hard, and maybe, you know, maybe I do not have the 
wherewithal to understand it. I do not know. But I find it hard to 
understand a person standing in the well saying, ``We want to give 
voters greater access and we want the voters to be able to have more 
control of their Congress,'' on one hand, and then on the other hand, 
turn around and say, But we do not want them to register to vote at a 
driver's license place, we do not want them to register to vote if they 
are on some kind of government subsidized program, we do not want them 
to be able to register to vote as easy as they can under the motor 
voter law, we do not want that at a time when the voting participation 
is at an all-time low. It seems like if we really want this Congress to 
be more citizen-oriented, we ought to get more citizens involved in the 
process by making sure they have 
[[Page H3876]] every opportunity to register to vote and participate in 
the process.
  I think another way we can deal with this problem of how we make sure 
incumbents are responsible, if that is the whole problem with Congress 
and with institutions, political institutions, and the thing that we 
want to address, why not have stronger campaign finance reform laws? 
You know, I would be for having very, very tough campaign finance 
reform legislation where the average citizen could, in fact, compete in 
an open election or in an election against an incumbent. You know, I 
think we can do something in this Congress to make the playing field a 
little bit fairer as it relates to incumbent versus challenger. I think 
that is real discussion.
  If we really want to give the average citizen, and I consider myself 
an average citizen, you know, for some reason or another, there is some 
thought that people in Congress are not average citizens. I mean, I 
wake up every morning, I go to work, I go home very week and work with 
constituents, and I do everything that the average people do. I mean, I 
work hard. I try to make a difference.
  But to give access to the so-called average citizen, Let us make this 
playing field a little fairer. But you cannot do that by having a $50 
dinner, you know, because most Americans, the vast majority of 
Americans, cannot afford to pay $50 to go to a dinner where the funds 
will be put in some campaign coffer to elect and reelect Members of the 
Congress.
  I just find there is a conflict with this whole argument of we are 
looking out for the average Joe Blow on the street and we want the 
average Joe Blow to be able to have access to this Congress, and we are 
tired off all of these career politicians taking over Congress. I think 
we really insult the intelligence of voters in this country.
  I want to speak now not as a Member of Congress. I want to speak now 
as a voter. I do not want this Congress telling me that I cannot vote 
for somebody because they served two term limits. As a matter of fact, 
I just do not think this Congress has a right to tell me who to vote 
for, because that is basically what you are telling, who I cannot vote 
for, so you are telling me who I cannot vote for and can vote for, 
because if you are telling me I cannot vote for this guy because he 
served two term limits, then you have limited my options. I just do not 
think this Congress, I, as a voter, do not think this Congress should 
tell me I cannot vote for a person irrespective of how well Sheila 
Jackson-Lee represented me, and irrespective of how well Sheila 
Jackson-Lee represented me in the State of Texas; she got up every 
morning, she is my kind of Representative, she works hard, and when I 
call her, Sheila Jackson-Lee returns my call, and she has town hall 
meetings, and she also goes into schools and she talks to our children, 
and she is one of the best Congresspersons in America as far as I am 
concerned. And I would be insulted if this Congress tells me I could 
not vote for Sheila Jackson-Lee because this Congress wanted to clean 
the House out. That is my decision.
  If I wanted to clear Sheila Jackson-Lee out of the House, then I 
would do it with my vote, and you cannot tell me and you cannot speak 
for me, because I am going to do that very well, and I am going to do 
it at the polls, and I think that is what this argument is all about.
  Are we going to let the people decide who sits in this body, or are 
we going to pass a law saying, it is almost like we have a reputation 
of doing this sort of stuff, three strikes and you are out, now we have 
three terms, you are out. Everything is almost like a baseball game 
here. I do not understand it. I am speaking as a voter. I just do not 
want this Congress to tell me I cannot vote for a person that 
represents me well.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. There are so many points, if the gentleman would 
yield, that you hit upon that are so very important.
  First of all, let me commend you for the untiring manner in which you 
have come to the House floor to speak about issues that take away from 
what we have come here for, and that is to enhance freedom. As we stand 
here and debate and dialog with each other, Americans might be 
wondering, the lateness of the hour, they might be looking at the 
Chambers and they might be wondering, and I would simply say that you 
are to be commended for the commitment, because we are standing here to 
be able to educate the American people and certainly to reflect upon 
the great constituents that we represent.
  You talked about campaign finance reform, and you might be puzzled 
about that, because obviously that is not part of the contract. That 
has not been part of the 100-day session that we are in which should 
have been. That is a reasonable response to ensuring that the average 
fellow, if you will, can engage themselves in running for office 
without this enormous amount of dollars that is very important, and 
then it is interesting that you had your pledge card. You do not hear a 
lot of debate about retroactive term limits, because if we are truly 
going to be pure, and I am looking at an amendment that is being raised 
by two Members, Dingell and Peterson, that talks about if you are going 
to pass term limits, then make it retroactive, knock out, if you will, 
all of the Members at this immediate time. You do not get serious 
debate on that.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Half of the Members proposing it would not 
be able to serve tomorrow.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That is why I am wondering, is this truly a 
realistic debate and an honest debate with the American people, or are 
we trying to make, if you will, a coverup on what actually we are 
supposed to be doing, or the contract is supposed to be complying with?
  But we are not going to really do an honest review of term limits. We 
are going to act like it, play around the edges of term limits. I want 
to be forthright and honest about it. I truly believe it would be an 
intervening force that would negate the activity of citizens to vote 
for persons of their choice.
  But if we were to do it, then I think retroactivity should be a 
viable part of any legislation that comes, because you hit it on the 
nail, hit the nail on the head, you are saying this is the 104th 
Congress. Well, the 104th Congress would be telling the 105th and 106th 
and 107th individuals elected by their constituents what to do on 
something which is so personal and strongly meaningful as voting upon 
the person whom you would represent.
  Let me lastly say to you, what is the structure of Congress? 
Seniority. How do you help to enhance your constituents? Yes, we have 
done, as they say, major tasks in just plain hard work, and I respect 
that. But I do not hear anyone trying to rid this system of a seniority 
system that, in fact, requires that Members at least have a 2-year term 
to respond to some of the urgent needs of this American people.
  So I would like for it to be an honest debate. Campaign finance 
reform is not even on the agenda at this time. The issue of seniority 
that has not even been raised, and then the question of whether or not 
it is appropriate that if you talk about term limits in a honest manner 
that you talk about retroactivity which means that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would immediately have to leave this body, and 
I am sure they would not mind it in their majority State because they 
truly believe in term limits.
  Let us have a fair and open debate. That is what I think is 
important.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I agree with the gentlewoman. Congress is, I 
mean, every 2 years we have to face the voters. I mean, I think we have 
the most awesome term limits there is probably in public life, because 
most offices are 4 years. The U.S. Senate, for example, every 6 years, 
but the Congress, every 2 years we must go and face voters.
  But let me ask the gentlewoman a question, because I have toyed with 
this question for a while in my mind. If I had to choose between a 
person who could serve only one term, because there is a term limit, 
and a person who can serve as long as he is responsible and as long as 
the voters choose to go to the polls and elect him or her, to me, I 
would feel more frightened by this person who has a term limit of one 
term, for example. He knows and she knows in his or her, in their own 
minds, that they cannot run for reelection, and you tell me, who do you 
think you would have the most trust in, a person who will never have to 
come and ask for your vote again; we 
[[Page H3877]] elected this person, he goes to Washington, he never is 
going to have to appear on the ballot as a congressional candidate 
again.
                              {time}  2300

  I got this other guy or lady who can run for reelection; and if they 
choose to do so, of course, then they will appear on the ballot.
  Now I don't know about you, but I just feel much more comfortable as 
a voter, not as a Member of Congress, as a voter. I feel much more 
comfortable with voting for this guy where we have got this carrot, and 
if he does a good job, I am going to send you back.
  That is what democracy is all about. You do a good job, I am going to 
send you back there, and I am going to keep you there.
  But this guy here, he knows that I know that he is not going to serve 
in Congress another day of his life. He does not have to return my 
phone calls because he does not need my vote. He does not have to do a 
good job. He can vote against everything that this district believes 
in. He does not have to hold one town hall meeting.
  Now you tell me, who do you feel, not as a Congresswoman but as a 
voter, who do you feel would be most representative of your views?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Well, as the gentleman from Louisiana well knows, it 
wasn't too long ago when I was not standing here at the well and was 
that citizen in my hometown. And I could just see glaring headlines 
when you were talking, government by reckless abandonment.
  That is the fellow over there that has got a term, one 2-year term, 
does not have to worry about responding to any of the issues that his 
or her constituents are concerned about, clearly articulates views that 
are off the mark and off the margin, maybe his or her own personal 
views, does not have to fight and go to the mat for the issues of that 
district, whether it be highways or whether it deals with energy laws, 
whether it deals with welfare, whether it deals with business 
investment, whether it deals with tax cuts or whether it deals with 
bringing down the deficit.
  You had asked the question what he or she is doing. I would simply 
say to you again, governing by reckless abandonment. It would be simply 
what they would want to do.
  The fellow or the lady that is dealing with the fact that they have 
to present themselves to the voters, they have to stand up to the test, 
and voters can be as sharp and to the point on their issues, do not 
sell any of those individuals cheap or undermine their understanding. 
And they ask the hard questions of where you have been over the last 2 
years on the issue. And if you want their confidence, that is the 
question. You are taking away voters giving an elected official the 
confidence of their vote.
  The most high honor that you can get from an individual is their 
confidence in voting for you. You take that away. You undermine the 
very system of government, and you leave it to reckless abandonment 
when you ensure that you have an artificial term-limiting process.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentlewoman would yield on this final 
point.
  And I really think that what we do, we are saying, what we are saying 
to voters across America, we are actually reaching into every 
congressional district, 435 congressional districts across the country, 
and we are saying to people in those districts, you are too stupid to 
do what is right. You keep sending the same people here time and time 
again.
  Well, you know, to me that is an insult to a voter's intelligence. If 
they say people served in this Congress x number of years, it has only 
been because the people in that district evidently wanted them to 
serve.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. The choice is theirs.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
for joining me tonight in the special order. I thank the Speaker.


                          ____________________