[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3888-H3898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 116 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the House Joint 
Resolution, House Joint Resolution 73.

                              {time}  1141


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 73) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States with respect to the number of terms of 
 [[Page H3889]] office of Members of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, with Mr. Klug in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] 
will be recognized for 1\1/2\ hours, and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 1\1/2\ hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day. Since the convening of the 
first Congress on March 4, 1789, more than 180 term-limit proposals 
have been introduced. Until today, however, there has never been a 
debate or vote on a term limits measure in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Today's debate is long overdue.
  We are taking up this important issue today because an overwhelming 
majority of the public supports--and is demanding--term limits for 
Members of Congress. This past November, the voters of 7 States adopted 
or strengthened limits on terms for Members of the U.S. House and 
Senate, bringing the number of States with congressional term limits to 
22. Twenty-one of those States have imposed term limits through ballot 
initiatives--with the people speaking directly and unequivocally in 
favor of term limits.
  It is clear that voters want more than the party in power to change. 
The people want the power structure in Washington to change. The 
American people know that there is too much power here in Washington 
intruding upon their lives and restricting their ability to make 
intelligent common sense decisions about how best to solve their own 
problems.
  The executive branch is huge and imposing. The judiciary is 
intrusive, and the Congress continues to create a larger body of law 
for the executive branch to enforce and the judiciary to interpret.
  It is an unfortunate consequence of long-term service in Congress 
that Members, even those with the best of intentions, too often begin 
to think that the power of the Federal Government can be used to solve 
every problem. The longer a Member stays in Washington, the more likely 
the Member will view Washington as the fount of all wisdom.
  There are enough people in Washington who think the Government can 
solve everyone's problems. This Nation needs representatives who have a 
fresh outlook and the necessary real-world experience to solve 
problems--many of which, ironically, have been created by the 
overreaching of the Federal Government.
  Congress has become too much like a permanent class of professional 
legislators who can use the powers of the Federal Government to 
perpetuate their own careers. There are many incentives which combine 
to turn Members of Congress into career legislators. Term limits will 
break the power of entrenched incumbency. It will give us 
representatives who put serving the interests of the people and 
advancing the good of the Nation ahead of perpetrating their own 
legislative careers.
  The American people want a more competitive electoral system. That is 
one important reason the public so strongly supports term limits.
  While the 1994 elections changed the party in control of the 
Congress, the overwhelming power and the benefits of incumbency 
remained. Ninety percent of House incumbents who sought reelection were 
successful. Of those incumbents who lost, half had not gained the full 
advantages of incumbency because they had only served one term. In the 
Senate, 92 percent of the incumbents who ran for reelection were 
successful.
  The American people also want to rein in the Federal Government. 
That's another major reason the people keep pushing for term limits on 
Members of Congress.
  Term limits would reduce the power of the Federal Government by 
eliminating the permanent class of career legislators--reducing the 
power of incumbency and seniority and making legislators more 
responsive to the interests of the American people. Term limits would 
restore a sense of proportion to politicians, and therefore to the 
Federal Government.
  Some argue that term limits will undermine effective and responsible 
Government--that term limits in effect will turn the Congress over to a 
gang of amateurs.
  I believe that these critics misunderstand the true meaning of 
representation in a democracy such as ours. Their arguments are 
eloquently refuted by Daniel Boorstein, the historian and former 
Librarian of Congress, in an essay entitled, ``The Amateur Spirit and 
Its Enemies.'' Mr. Boorstein writes:

       The true leader is an amateur in the proper, original sense 
     of the word. The amateur, from the Latin word for ``love'', 
     does something for the love of it. He pursues his enterprise 
     not for money, not to please the crowd, not for professional 
     prestige or for assured promotion and retirement at the end--
     but because he loves it.
       Aristocracies are governed by people born to govern, 
     totalitarian societies by people who make ruling their 
     profession, but our representative government must be led by 
     people never born to govern, temporarily drawn from the 
     community and sooner or later sent back home.

  Mr. Boorstein goes on to conclude:

       The more complex and gigantic our government, the more 
     essential that the layman's point of view have eloquent 
     voices. The amateur spirit is a distinctive virtue of 
     democracy. Every year, as professions and bureaucracies 
     increase in power, it becomes more difficult--yet more 
     urgent--to keep that spirit alive.

  By enacting term limits we will be doing our part to keep alive this 
distinctive virtue of democracy. We will make certain that 
representatives understand the needs and wants of the people because 
they will have been a part of their world--living and working among 
them--without the privileges and trappings which elevate and isolate 
career politicians.
  Members will come to Washington knowing that they will not be able to 
establish permanent careers here. Members will come to Washington to 
serve their districts and the Nation--not to become part of the 
Washington establishment.
  That is what the people of this country want. That's the kind of 
system they yearn for. And that is the kind of system they deserve.
  As Members of this House it is our responsibility to listen to the 
American people. This is their Government. They pay the taxes. They 
fight the wars. How can we in good conscience turn a deaf ear to their 
demand for term limits? How can we ignore the unequivocal message that 
comes to us from all across this great land?
  How can we stand in the way of the change that overwhelming 
majorities have supported in State after State?
  The issue before this House today is this: Will we or will we not 
listen to the people of the United States?
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the people and to support the 
constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and I ask 
unanimous consent that he be able to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we have now reached that 
point in time in the plank of the Republicans' Contract With America 
which seeks to turn the Congress against itself. Like many of the other 
provisions of the much ballyhood contract, Mr. Chairman, the proposed 
term limits amendment has really very little to do with substance. Like 
the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto, this debate 
concerns mere procedure more than anything else. It does nothing to 
create more jobs, nothing to increase our citizens' standard of living, 
and nothing to reduce our trade deficit.
  Collectively these Republican procedural proposals say to the 
American 
 [[Page H3890]] people in effect that we, the Congress, can no longer 
be trusted to govern this country, that we must give the courts the 
power to balance the budget, and the President the power to cut 
spending, and today the Republicans would have us say that we cannot 
even trust the Members of this body to handle what little legislative 
responsibilities may remain with us as the second branch of Government. 
The irony is that these transfers in power from the legislative branch 
are being proposed at the very time the Republicans have achieved 
majority status.
  Well, I must respectfully disagree with those who say Congress is 
incapable of legislating, and, while this may be a radical idea, I 
continue to have faith in the scheme of Government that was laid out in 
our Constitution more than 2 centuries ago. The Founding Fathers 
considered this question, and they unanimously rejected term limits at 
that time. I fully agree with James Madison who wrote that term limits 
``would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior * * * [and 
the Nation would be deprived] of the experience and wisdom gained by an 
incumbent.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask, where else is experience trashed as it will be 
during this debate? Where else will people who have gained from working 
on the job, who are being reelected and confirmed in their office on 2-
year-period intervals, would such a notion as this be considered worthy 
of all the attention and furor that it will shortly receive?
  I also continue to have faith in the fundamental good judgment of the 
American voters who have already the power to impose term limits. We 
face the voters every 2 years; does anyone in this Chamber need to be 
reminded of that? The Senators, every 6 years. I do not think it a good 
idea to deny these voters the right to elect the person that they think 
best represents their interests, even though he or she may have 
received their support in years prior. This would turn the very basic 
principle of democracy on its head.
  I think the voters of Texas knew what they were doing when they 
reelected Sam Rayburn year after year after year, and the people of 
North Carolina knew what they were doing when they repeatedly returned 
Sam Ervin to office. His wise counsel and well-reasoned judgments 
helped steer this country through a dangerous Constitutional crisis 
that I recall very vividly. And what Member would have wanted to deny 
the voters of Florida the opportunity to reelect Claude Pepper so that 
he could fight for Social Security and health care benefits?
  May I also remind those who support term limits that the notion of a 
career Congress which they decry so vehemently is more myth than 
anything else. Membership in the House and the Senate is remade ever 
decade. In the early 1980's, a full three-fourths of Senators and 
Representatives had served less than 12 years, and more than one-half 
of the current Members of the House at this moment were elected on or 
after 1990.
  So, the best safeguard we have against rampant special interest abuse 
are the Members who have been around long enough to know the ropes and 
know where the bodies are buried. If the voters understood that the 
effect of term limits would be a massive transfer of power to the 
permanent bureaucracy of congressional and executive branch staff as 
well as to corporate and foreign lobbyists, they might not be quite so 
enamored of the idea. Given a choice between an elected official 
beholden to the voters and an unelected bureaucrat, I think the voters 
would prefer to place their trust in the elected official every time.
  Term limits are the worst possible example of cheap bumper sticker 
politics run amok. We have spent enough time kicking ourselves in the 
face and looking to other branches of government to solve our problems, 
and I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's stop 
wasting time with these procedural distractions and return to the 
business of running the country and improving the lives of citizens 
that we claim to represent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against term limits, and I 
thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.
  I realize that term limits are very popular, and that they will 
receive a very large vote in favor here today.
  I realize that in some ways I am tilting at windmills here. But I 
also know that very few people realize how much turnover is already 
occurring in this body.
  The people have elected 203 new Members in just the last 2 years. Let 
me repeat that: 203 Members--almost half the House--have begun their 
service just since January 1993.
  There were 110 freshmen elected 2 years ago--and 6 more in special 
elections in between--and 87 more freshmen in the last election.
  If ever there was a proposal that corrected a problem that does not 
exist, term limits must be that proposal.
  Of all the truly serious problems this country faces, turnover in the 
Congress is not one of them.
  Not only are we having record turnover in the Congress, that same 
thing is happening in the elective offices all across the Nation. So I 
emphasize once more--term limits correct a problem that does not exist.
  Second, term limits simply fly in the face of common sense. In no 
other area do we regard experience as a bad thing.
  Does it make sense to go to a great teacher, or nurse, or architect, 
or whatever, and say, ``We know you are doing a great job, but you have 
been here 6 years, or 8 years, so your time is up.''
  Electing good new people to office makes sense. Re-electing people 
who are doing good jobs makes sense.
  Establishing arbitrary term limits--which everyone admits will force 
many outstanding people out of office--just does not make sense.
  Third, we would have lost some of the greatest service ever performed 
for this Nation if we had already had term limits.
  Senator Howard Baker from my State could not have served as the 
leader of the Senate--probably some of his greatest service to the 
country.
  Newt Gingrich could not now be Speaker, because he is in his 17th 
year of service.
  Roll Call, the newspaper that covers the Congress, pointed out Monday 
that Great Britain would have been deprived of the service of Winston 
Churchill during World War II.
  Fourth, term limits were specifically considered and rejected by our 
Founding Fathers.
  I am one of the most conservative Members of this House. I know that 
most conservatives support term limits.
  But there is nothing conservative about term limits. These are very 
radical proposals. They would change over 200 years of constitutional 
history and precedent.
  More importantly, they are very undemocratic--with a small ``d''. 
They really take away another right of our people--the right to vote 
for whomever they please.
  Fifth, and finally, term limits will strengthen the power of the 
unelected--the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, the committee staffs.
  We already have a Government that is of, by, and for the bureaucrats, 
instead of one that is of, by, and for the people. Term limits will 
make this situation worse.
  Term limits have risen as an outcry against a big, wasteful, 
intrusive, bureaucratic Government.
  The people have the intelligence and good sense to know who is voting 
for big Government and who is not.
  The best way to bring about effective change is the old-fashioned 
way--through our electoral process that has served this country so well 
for so many years.
  The worst possible thing to do now, during a time of great change 
anyway, is to try out some radical, arbitrary gimmick like term limits, 
which corrects a problem that does not exist.
                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], who, although he is not a 
member of the committee, has done an outstanding job in working on this 
subject.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning aware of the fact 
 [[Page H3891]] that there are many different audiences listening.
  There is the audience in this House--Members who have various 
opinions about this issue, who feel strongly about the debate we are 
having, who have studied the pros and cons.
  There are some--like my friends on this side of the aisle like Mr. 
Conyers--who have gone about it the right way.
  They have taken a close look at the legal opinions.
  They have taken a close look at the Constitution that we live by.
  And, more importantly, they have taken a close look within themselves 
and their own conscience to decide whether they support term limits.
  Like them, I have decided that I cannot support term limits as they 
have been written by the Republicans.
  Unfortunately, there are others in this Chamber--mostly on the other 
side of the aisle--who have decided to look at public opinion polls 
rather than look at the Constitution.
  They have watched focus groups rather than focus on the real impact 
of this resolution.
  They have decided to listen more closely to the angry voices of talk 
radio rather than the subtle, eloquent, and ancient voices of our 
Founding Fathers who thought that the people had the right to decide 
whom to elect to Congress.
  In fact, the Founding Fathers did--in their wisdom--write term limits 
into the Constitution. Term limits that work.
  Every 2 years, your term is up. You want an extension, you go to the 
people--the people--and ask for their approval.
  Now, it is obvious that the Republicans understand that reality. They 
realize that they need to be reelected. Otherwise, we would not have 
the ranting and raving and pandering and posturing that you are going 
to hear from them today.
  So I very much want to speak to my colleagues here today, and engage 
with them in a meaningful debate.
  Meanwhile, thanks to the magic of cable television, there is an 
audience all around the country with whom I can speak this morning. 
There are people in my district in Illinois listening and watching.
  And for them I am taking a stand against fake phony term limits.
  But, there are also people in districts far away whom I would also 
like to address.
  I would like people in districts like Florida's Eighth District to 
listen closely. Not just to my words, but to those of your own 
Representative.
  Now, I hope you do not think I am picking on your Congressman, Mr. 
McCollum. I trust that you sent him here with some good reason.
  But, Mr. McCollum has thrust himself into this term limits debate. He 
has done so with some intensity.
  And all I can say is, when you do that--when you start slinging 
arrows, do not be surprised when one comes back at you.
  So, here it comes.
  He, McCollum, is a chief sponsor of a bill to limit Members to term 
of 12 years.
  He, McCollum, was elected in 1980.
  It is now 1995.
  Now, you do the math, and you figure out that if Mr. McCollum really 
believed what he said, there would be a very simple way for him to 
enact the 12-year term limits. Walk away.
  Now, you might be inclined to think that Mr. McCollum will at least 
support the amendment that I will speak on later today to make term 
limits retroactive.
  Nope. Not him.
  Even so, let us just listen to the words of Mr. McCollum, who today 
is proud to tell us that he sponsors a resolution for a 12-year term 
limit.
  He said: ``Those of us who believe in term limits * * * need to stay 
longer, unfortunately, because the system is the way it is.''
  If you have been here that long, you are the system. You are the 
system that you say needs changing.
  Now, let us go on, because there is also an audience in the Sixth 
District of Georgia listening to me.
  Today I want to send a special message to them.
  I want to inform you that your Congressman, Mr. Gingrich--whom you 
first elected in 1978--supports limiting members to 12 years of 
service.
  In a press conference endorsing the 12-year limit, the Speaker, now 
in his 17th year, said: ``The balance of power in favor of professional 
politicians as incumbents * * * has made a mockery of the process of 
open elections.''
  So, that must mean that each election held in Georgia's Sixth 
District since 1990--when Mr. Gingrich's 12 years were up--has been a 
mockery.
  If I lived in Georgia, I would be concerned to hear that I had voted 
in a mockery of an election. In fact--three of them, since 1990.
  Now, I have heard a lot of people talk about the Speaker and his 
problems with GOPAC.
  Well, today, I am not going to talk about GOPAC.
  But I am going to say go back, as in go back to Georgia, because the 
12-year limit that you want to impose on everyone else has long ago 
passed for you.
  Go back, as in how do you go back to your district every week--and I 
know that he does, because I see him on t.v. teaching that course on 
``Saving the Western World'' or whatever it is called--but, how do you 
go back to your district every week and tell folks that you support a 
12-year limit, but you are going on serving well beyond that.
  No, I am not going to say GOPAC but I am going to say go back--as in 
how do you go back on your word, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Gingrich said that without these changes, the congressional 
campaigns are a ``mockery''.
  Well, thanks to his Republicans and their empty term limits rhetoric, 
they are making mockery of Congress.
  What is a mockery?
  The dictionary says ``an action of ridicule * * * false * * * and 
imitation.''
  That is what today's debate is.
  Ah, but there is an answer.
  A way to ensure that the political power in this country is given 
back to the people who deserve to have it. The men and women who work 
hard and play by the rules.
  And that is with serious, substantive campaign finance reform.
  Campaign finance reform insures that an incumbent must earn--and 
continue to earn--his or her seat in the body, rather than act like 
they own it.
  Nobody owns a seat in this House.
  But, as long as we debate phony issues like term limits, and avoid 
real issues like campaign finance reform, we make it possible for 
lobbyists and big-dollar contributors to own Members.
  In their contract, this was part of the Republicans' so-called 
Citizen Legislature Act.
  You want a legislature that belongs to the citizens? Good. Let us put 
limits on the time we spend raising money and hustling for votes.
  Campaign finance reform is the answer.
  Term limits is not.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to remind our visitors in the gallery 
that no expressions on their part are allowed.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, to begin the debate, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. King], one Member who is 
strongly opposed to term limits.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in total opposition to term limits. I oppose 
term limits because they are undemocratic and because they represent 
the ultimate in elitism.
  For someone from some other part of the country to come to my 
district and tell my voters they cannot vote for me just because I 
happen to have been in office for 6 years or 8 years or 12 years is the 
ultimate insider mentality. They are saying that they know more than 
the average voter in the average district around this country. Perhaps 
in their districts people want to elect part-time farmers or barnyard 
philosophers. That is fine. Let them elect those people. Let them send 
them here to Congress. But my point is that it is up to each voter in 
each district to decide what person they want to elect to Congress.
  I must say that while it is very seldom that I agree with my friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
 [[Page H3892]] Gutierrez], there is a lot to be said for the logic of 
retroactivity. My feeling is that we should only amend the Constitution 
if it represents an ultimate truth, something about which there can be 
no debate. For instance, the 13th amendment abolished slavery. Now, 
would those who favor term limits have followed the logic in the 1860's 
of saying, ``I am opposed to slavery, but I'm not going to free my 
slaves until the amendment is adopted'' or ``I'm going to continue 
being a slave holder because the 13th amendment isn't adopted yet''?
  Of course not. If it is wrong, if it is immoral, if it somehow tears 
away at our country not to have term limits, then lead by example--go 
home, because otherwise what you are saying is that this is just a 
political issue that we use to get elected. And as a Republican, I am 
very, very concerned about this entire pernicious pattern of pandering 
and posturing by Members who seem to have an unquenchable quest or an 
unquenchable thirst for self-flagellation. It is part of an overall 
pattern where they are denouncing everything about the Congress, 
denouncing being a politician, denouncing being a person committed to 
making change in government.
  My feeling or my strong belief is that those of us who say we want 
change, what we are really doing, those of us who support term limits 
are saying that the voters in the districts are not smart enough to 
elect the proper Members to Congress. and what could be more elitist, 
what could be more antidemocratic, what could be more of an inside-the-
beltway mentality than to be denying the voters of individual districts 
the right to elect the Members of their choice?
  Just think, I say to the Republicans, my fellow Republicans, of some 
of the outstanding Members who would not have been elected if we had 
had term limits. The voters of Ohio would not have been allowed to 
reelect Robert Taft to his third term in the U.S. Senate. The voters of 
Illinois would not have been able to elect Everett Dirksen. The voters 
of Kansas would not have been allowed to reelect Robert Dole. And on 
the Democratic side, outstanding leaders such as Sam Rayburn would not 
have been allowed to return to Congress because someone in Washington 
said that it is wrong for the people in Texas or Ohio or Illinois to 
select the person they want to represent them in Congress.
  I am probably the last person in this body who could be accused of 
being an Anglophile. However, the point is made about Winston 
Churchill. He was a man
 who served over 40 years in the British Parliament. Are we saying it 
was wrong or that it was immoral for Winston Churchill to be in the 
Parliament at the time of World War II?

  Who among us would be better qualified? Would it have been that part-
time farmer from some State? Would he have been a better Speaker? Maybe 
he would have, but let the voters in that district decide.
  Also one of the main arguments that we have used against Congress in 
our incessant campaigns against Congress has been the fact that staffs 
are too powerful. Nothing could make staffs more powerful than to have 
Members rotating in and out and having a permanent unelected body of 
staff deciding the legislation, deciding the procedures, deciding the 
process.
  I strongly believe that for a Congress to be effective we need a 
whole range of Members in this Congress. We need the institutional 
memory of someone like a Henry Hyde or a Joe Moakley.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. King] has 
expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 additional 
seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King].
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I will take the 30 seconds from Mr. Shays.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the 
gentleman that Mr. Shays got the 30 seconds from us, so if he wants to 
go through the middleman, he is entitled.
  Mr. KING. I have enough trouble with my own party. It is easier if I 
get it from Mr. Shays.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
very much for his munificence.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to be a real representative body what we 
need is a wide range of elected officials, but we should not be 
imposing our will on who those elected officials are. It should be the 
genius of the American people to decide that we need a person of 
experience like a Henry Hyde and we need a person like my good friend, 
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Bob Inglis who is going to be 
gone in 3 years. But that is up to the people to decide, not for us to 
say who should be changed or who should not be changed. Let the 
American people decide that. They decided that in 1994 when they 
overwhelmingly rejected Democrats and elected Republicans. We are our 
own best argument against term limits.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time, and I rise today to mark this historic occasion 
of finally having the opportunity to discuss, debate, and vote on term 
limits on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  What a wonderful day it is. After a long time working for this, we 
finally get the opportunity. It is a great thing. What a difference an 
election can make.
  In the last Congress we had a Speaker who sued us in the State of 
Washington to prevent us from enacting term limits. This time we have a 
Speaker who is working with us to bring this to a vote.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to point out the basic case for term 
limits and then to answer several of the objections.
  First, the basic case: The average American, as the Members can see 
here by my chart, keeps his or her job 6 years. The average Member of 
Congress keeps his or her job 8 years. That is not terribly long, and a 
lot of speakers will point out that some 200 Members are relatively 
new.
  But here is the critical statistic: The average Members of the 
leadership who we all know run this place have kept their jobs for an 
average of 22 years. This tells the story of why we need term limits.
  Let me point out another chart that tells the story of why we need 
term limits. Of course, we had all this discussion, and we will hear 
plenty of it today from the opponents of term limits, about the fact 
that we have had such a massive turnover in this body. But let us ask 
where the turnover came from. The turnover came from open seat 
elections. Relatively few Members have lost their attempts to be 
elected, and let me show that to the Members by this chart.
                              {time}  1215

  In 1990, 96 percent of those who wanted to come back came back. In 
1992, it went down a little bit. 88 percent of those who wanted to come 
back came back. In 1994, the election that got us this management 
change, and I am very thankful, as I just stated, for that management 
change, because now we have an opportunity to debate term limits, 90 
percent of those of us who wanted to come back were reelected. That I 
think tells the story of a permanent Congress, a Congress that becomes 
out of touch with the people back home.
  Now, about the issue of what the States have done, as you can see 
here, some 22 States have decided to limit terms. That I think is an 
indication of the strength of support out there and why it is that this 
is finally long overdue and now thankfully on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  In the time that remains, let me address a couple of the major 
objections to term limits. First, the bureaucracy will run the place. 
Let me ask the other Members of Congress today to address this 
question. If you are talking civil servants, there is no way a Member 
of Congress can deal with a civil servant. How about your personal 
staff and how many do you have on your staff? I have got 15, and 2 
part-time folks. The people at home direct a whole lot of people. In 
small businesses they may have 100 people they direct. In big 
corporations they may have thousands of people they direct. So we 
cannot make too much of our job here. 
 [[Page H3893]] Let us not think too highly of ourselves. It is a 
relatively small operation. There are only 15 or so in our offices, 18 
if you have the full complement and spending all the taxpayers' money 
and 4 part-time people. It is a small operation. Let us be honest.
  So the bureaucracy, you cannot control the civil servants now, except 
by controlling their appropriations. You can control your own office, 
because there are so few people in there.
  Now, second objection: We are going to lose talent. How are we going 
to lose the talent? If a talented Member of this House wants to run for 
Governor, nobody in the term limit effort begrudges them that. We would 
encourage them to run for Governor. If a talented Member of the Senate 
wants to run for President, we encourage them to run for President. We 
are not going to lose the talent; we are going to redirect it. All the 
folks we are hearing about we are going to lose, they might be the 
President of the United States if we forced them out of here, or might 
be a great Senator, or maybe a Governor. We will force them over there.
  The third objection that my good friend just mentioned speaking 
before me is do not tell my people who they can vote for. Do not limit 
their choices. Well, who are you speaking for? Eighty percent of the 
American people want term limits. They told you that. They tell you 
every town meeting. They tell you in every poll taken in your district. 
Who are you speaking for? The 20 percent?
  They are giving you a message. They want to limit you. They are just 
being fairly polite about it by not telling you to your face, but they 
are telling you in every opinion poll 80 percent of us want term 
limits.
  So when you stand here and say do not tell my people how they cannot 
reelect me, they are trying to tell you they do not want to reelect you 
after a period of time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about term limits, and maybe 
debunk some of the myths that have been put out about why term limits 
are such a good idea.
  Now, the first argument that you hear is that well, the majority of 
people like it. You just heard 80 percent of the people like term 
limits. Well, they have an easy solution. Do not vote for us. The fact 
of the matter is, the people right now have that option. All those 
people who do not like the incumbent can not vote for the incumbent. 
But if you think about it, ladies and gentlemen, the point of the 
matter is this is not a popularity contest. A lot of the majority at 
one point in time thought slavery was a good idea. You could probably 
get a majority today to abolish all taxes. That does not dispose of the 
issue. Clearly we need more thought on this issue.
  Second, you hear what we need is a citizen legislature. We are all 
citizens. It does not matter whether you have been here 2, 10, or 20 
years, we are all citizens. But my point is, being in the legislature 
is not a hobby. It is not a lark. It is a job with a tremendous amount 
of responsibility. I am going into my third year, and I have to tell 
you, it is an awesome responsibility, and there is a very high learning 
curve. You do not manage a multitrillion-dollar budget by walking in 
off the street.
  People want to say, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, 
well, you ought to run Government like a business. Ladies and 
gentlemen, you know, every business cherishes its talented people. 
There is no corporation in America that says after you have been here 6 
years and begun to learn the business or after you have been managing 
for 12 years and things are going well, we are going to kick you out 
the door. It does not work that way. Yes, run Government like a 
business, keep talented people there. At least give them the 
opportunity to be retained.
  Third, you hear about incumbency. First of all, there are 83 new 
Members in this body, so incumbents are not winning all the races. The 
gentleman says most of the incumbents still won anyway. Yes, people 
like me, who are incumbents the last time around, who were freshmen 
incumbents. There are over 100 in my class. Most of us did win. That is 
not an indictment of this system to suggest that incumbents win. That 
is the reasonable outcome.
  Finally, there is the issue of career politicians. Let me state 
emphatically, there is nothing wrong with a career in politics, if you 
do a good job, if your people think you do a good job, and if they 
elect you.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the people ought to have the right to select 
the person that they want. That is the only issue in this debate, the 
right of American people to decide in their individual district and 
their individual community if they want to retain someone or if they 
want to oust them. I trust the wisdom of the American people to make 
that decision on election day, and that is why I believe we do not need 
term limits.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this joint 
resolution, and I urge the membership to defeat each of the substitutes 
that will come before us later on today. Term limits, in my opinion, 
are a bad idea. They are anti-democratic, and I think that they will 
upset the balance of power and checks and balances that the Framers of 
our Constitution so delicately devised and which have served the United 
States of America so well for over 200 years.
  The Constitution of the United States should not tell the voters who 
they cannot vote for. That is a Government law that limits the choice 
of the voters and tells the voters that if someone has served for 6 or 
8 or 12 years, they are no longer qualified to serve in the Congress of 
the United States, no matter how distinguished their service has been, 
no matter how much they represented the viewpoints of the majority of 
their constituents, and no matter how honest and forthright they are. I 
think that is wrong.
  Second, term limits will end up strengthening the hand of the 
executive and judicial branches at the expense of Congress. Many of the 
more ardent supporters of term limits say that they support limiting 
terms because they wish to weaken the legislative branch of Government, 
the Congress of the United States. But if one stops and thinks about 
that argument, it weakens the only branch that is completely elected by 
the people of this country. Every Senator and Representative is an 
elected official. But in the Executive and Judicial Branches, only the 
President is elected, and those are the two branches of Government that 
will become stronger proportionately as Congress is weakened by term 
limits.
  In fact, term limits will actually make Representatives and Senators 
more distant from their constituents, because they will no longer have 
the incentive to go back home and face their people and find out what 
their people are thinking in order to win reelection.
  The third problem with term limits is that it will effectively place 
control of the House of Representatives in the hands of the four 
largest State delegations. That means that those who represent the 
other 46 States, no matter how talented they are, are not going to be 
able to achieve the respect, to get on
 good committees, and to achieve the knowledge that goes with being on 
the strong and powerful committees, and will be relegated to serving on 
the committees that are of much lower priority.

  I just look at my own State, where Les Aspin and David Obey, Henry 
Reuss and Clement Zablocki on the Democratic side, and Melvin Laird and 
John Byrnes and William Steiger on the Republican side have served with 
distinction. Buy they were never able to hit their prime until they had 
been here for 10 or 12 years, because they had not gotten the respect 
and the chits from their other colleagues in order to get into 
positions of influence.
  Finally, term limits and changing the Constitution will not change 
human nature. Human beings are those who are elected by the people to 
represent them in the Congress of the United States. The reward for 
doing a good job in this business is reelection, and that is an 
incentive that drives us to represent our people and to go back 
 [[Page H3894]] home and listen to what the people are saying.
  I am afraid that with term limits we would become much like Mexico, 
which is a government that has a term limit of one term on all of their 
elected officials. If you do not have to go back home, then you start 
looking for the next job right away. Every contact with the lobbyists 
then becomes a contact with a potential future employer. As it stands 
now, no Senator or Representative starts looking for the next job until 
they decide to retire or the voters decide that question for them. With 
term limits, you are going to have people looking forward to the next 
job right from the very beginning. That is going to end up corrupting 
the system of government that we have to an even greater extent than it 
is now.
  Please vote against term limits, uphold the Constitution of the 
United States, and uphold the checks and balances which have served our 
country so well.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, at her request, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I am rising in support of the term limit 
bills. I introduced a term limits bill identical to the one that Oregon 
passed. I want to say to my Republican colleague, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. King], he said Washington should not dictate. No, 
Washington should not. And it is not Washington who is dictating, it is 
the voters. The voters of Oregon overwhelmingly voted in favor of term 
limits, and I support the term limits bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me that anyone can believe 
that if only we can correct the faulty Constitution our Founders gave 
us by adding term limits, all our problems will be solved.
  In 1787, the American Constitution was a revolutionary document, 
placing, for the first time in human history, its faith in the 
individual judgment of ordinary people as our governing force.
  Now some would abandon faith in the judgment of the people and urge 
an artificial restraint.
  The Founders debated the issue of term limits at the constitutional 
convention and ultimately decided that the sole responsibility for 
choosing the people who would represent them should be left to the 
people, and not be controlled or limited by the Government. Thomas 
Jefferson said it best in a letter to William Charles Jarvis on 
September 28, 1820:

       I know no safe depository of the ultimate power of the 
     society but the people themselves; and if we think them not 
     enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome 
     discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to 
     inform their discretion.

  Our problems do not lie with a poorly written Constitution. They lie 
with our failure to live up to the trust placed in us by the Founders. 
The solution is not to remove the trust, but for the people to fully 
inform themselves and fully participate in the electoral process as the 
Founders envisioned. That has happened with a vengeance in the last two 
elections. Today, over half the House of Representatives has served 
less than 4 years. Congress is today a dynamic body, responsive to the 
people--without changing the Constitution.
  Those who today urge support for term limits have it wrong. The 
Founders, who debated term limits extensively in 1787, got it right the 
first time. Leave it to the people.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is truly a historic day, the first time in the 
history of the U.S. House of Representatives that we are here to have a 
debate and vote on limiting the terms of Members of the U.S. House and 
Senate. It is something a lot of us have wanted to do for a long time, 
but we have never had that opportunity under the previous 
administration and the 40 years of Democrat control. But we have it 
here today. Now we need to take advantage of it.
  We need to answer in this term limit debate two questions: Are 
congressional term limits a good idea; and, if so, what version is best 
to place in the U.S. Constitution?
  The answer to the first question is clearly yes. The fact that nearly 
80 percent of the American people favor term limits may alone be reason 
enough to enact them. But this begs the question. While there are 
numerous reasons for the support, the most profound go to the need to 
change the institution of Congress itself and the attitude of those who 
serve. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they could not 
have foreseen the full-time year-round Congress of today. They never 
envisioned a Federal Government as large and complex as it is now. They 
viewed Congressmen as citizen legislators who spent only a couple of 
months every year legislating and the rest of the time at home 
conducting their personal business.

                              {time}  1230

  Indeed for over 100 years, most House Members served two terms or 
less and only in this half century has Congress become a year-round, 
full-time job.
  The chart that I have here explains this pretty clearly. We have had 
a number of speakers this morning talking about the fact that we have 
had turnover recently in the last two elections. The problem is 
historically, if you look at the chart, you can see the first 100 years 
of the Nation, we had very few Members who served nearly as long. Now 
they are serving a lot longer and those in the blue line on this chart 
who run for reelection are being reelected overwhelmingly, very high 
percentages today on the far end of that chart. So statistical norms 
show that we are in a period of time far different from what the 
Founding Fathers could have envisioned.
  With these fundamental institutional changes has come a change in the 
attitude of Members serving in Congress. Most Members have no outside 
earned income, and many are prohibited by law from practicing their 
professions. As a consequence, it is only natural that a great many 
Members view Congress as a career and are motivated to protect 
themselves from reelection challenges by far more than the simple 
desire to continue to serve their country. They see these facts: A 
seniority system which generally rewards length of service and the 
power of incumbents seeking reelection. Consequently many vote with the 
primary concern being how the vote will affect their reelection chances 
rather than what is best for the country.
  This concern with reelection frequently translates into votes to 
please every interest group. Virtually every budget item has a 
constituency in each congressional district. The Congressman knows that 
if he or she votes against the wishes of that constituency he risks 
their votes in the next election and that the best way to get reelected 
is to avoid displeasing any interest group no matter its size. Votes, 
not campaign contributions, are the real issue. Hence, no amount of 
campaign finance reform will solve this problem.
  Enactment of term limits is the only way to alter this attitude. With 
term limits in place, those coming into Congress
 will know that they have only a limited period of time in the House or 
Senate. Most will not come with a career attitude. While still 
concerned with reelection, inevitably there will be less conscious or 
subconscious pressure to vote to please every interest group. This 
cannot help but make balanced budgets more likely and lead to decisions 
more favorable to the citizenry as a whole than to a collection of 
interest groups.

  Term limits will also mean a permanent end to chairmen who can 
control a committee for 15 or 20 years. It will guarantee fresh new 
faces and ideas regularly coming to Washington.
  Of course, there will be some loss of experience and institutional 
wisdom. It is a necessary tradeoff. With thousands of talented 
Americans available to fill the shoes of those departing, the loss will 
not be nearly as great as term limits critics will say.
  As to the choices among the term limit alternatives, the most 
rational approach, in my judgment, is embodied in House Joint 
Resolution 73 which I have offered and is the base text before us 
today. It provides a permanent 12-year limit on both the House and 
Senate with no retroactivity and silence on State preemption. To 
provide lower limits for the House than for the Senate would mean that 
the House would become a weaker body vis-a-vis the 
 [[Page H3895]] Senate. Furthermore, a 6-year House limit does not 
provide sufficient time for a Member to become experienced enough to do 
a good job in serving as a chairman of a full committee or in a major 
leadership position in Congress. Shorter limits validate the critics' 
argument that term limits will lead to staff domination whereas 12 
years virtually eliminates it.
  Those who want to set a 12-year cap and leave it to the States to 
decide lesser limits are asking for a permanent hodgepodge of 6-, 8-, 
and 12-year limits throughout the Nation which in the long run cannot 
help but be bad public policy. It is naive to assume that all States 
would eventually reach a uniform norm under the 12-year cap. Political 
reality says that some States would always have lower limits than 
others. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the States in the 
current pending case, such a hodgepodge could exist even under House 
Joint Resolution 73, but others want to give the States such a right 
regardless of the Court interpretation in the constitutional language. 
This simply does not make sense.
  Some term limits supporters genuinely favor retroactivity, but most 
understand that in the current debate retroactivity is a mischievous 
tool of those who are opposed to limits. None of the 22 States that 
have adopted term limit initiatives have retroactivity. In Washington 
State where it was featured, the initiative lost, and a later one 
without it succeeded. As a practical matter retroactivity will cost 
votes on final passage and every vote is going to be needed to get to 
the 290 necessary to pass term limits in the House today. The 
retroactivity amendment will kill term limits. And I urge a vote 
against it.
  Though the merits of each term limit proposal should be thoroughly 
debated, every Member of the House who truly supports term limits 
should put aside their differences.
  And when we get, after the amending process, to vote on final 
passage, we need a yes vote. Better than 80 percent of the American 
people favor term limits, Democrats and Republicans alike are evenly 
divided. We are going to have 80 to 90 percent of the Republicans 
voting for it. If we just get 50 percent of the Democrats to do it, we 
can pass term limits today.
  We need to have this healthy debate. Term limits are overdue. I urge 
a favorable vote for the final passage of term limits and this great 
historic debate.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I am sorry my friend did not yield to me. As he described the 
terrible things that happen to the attitude of Members who have been 
here too long and if they have been here, especially after 12 years, I 
was going to ask him when in his 15 years of service this terrible 
thing happened to him. But I guess I will have to wait for my answer 
until later.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I think the greatest disservice that any public official can pay to 
the people he represents and to the democratic system is to cynically 
manipulate public frustrations and to then give their voters the 
impression that they are pretending to be for something which they 
really are opposing.
  I think that is happening today. I think the greatest honor a public 
official can do to the people he represents is to deal honestly with 
them, especially when he has an honest disagreement with them.
  In my view, voters are being treated to a cynical charade by the way 
this term limit proposition is being handled in the House today. For 
many years, many in the Republican leadership have told the public that 
they are for term limits in order to get votes, but then they 
unexpectedly came into power. They find themselves now in control, and 
they now have to produce what they promised.
  Does anybody really believe that a Member who has served 16 years is 
sincere in saying that he is for term limits when he continues to file 
for reelection every 2 years? If they were sincere, it seems to me all 
they would have to do is to demonstrate that sincerity by simply 
deciding not to run again.
  The process today, in my view, is designed to kill term limits. It 
allows Members to pretend that they are opposed to term limits by 
voting for any one of the four propositions before the House. But 
because there are four propositions rather than one, procedurally you 
virtually guarantee that there will be insufficient votes for any one 
of the four, thus enabling people to go home and say, ``Oh, I voted for 
term limits, but * * *''
  It just seems to me that that is a charade which does the public no 
great service.
  I would also point out that the main term limits amendment does not 
even apply to most senior Members of this House, such as myself. It is 
a ``let's pretend'' term limit. It takes place only in the hereafter. 
It does not take place in the here and now. To me that is a measure of 
its unreality.
  I oppose the concept of term limits because I took an oath to uphold 
the Constitution. I take that oath seriously. I honestly believe that 
if these proposals pass, from the day Members walk into this 
institution they will be on the lookout and they will be shopping for 
their next job. As my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner], said, every time a lobbyist walks into their office, 
they will be looking at that lobbyist as a potential employer in a few 
short years. I do not think you want to do that to this institution.
  I believe the public ought to have a right to vote for anybody they 
want, without the benefit of social engineering by would-be 
constitutional scholars in this House.
  I believe term limits would allow bureaucrats whose favorite weapon 
is inertia to simply try to out wait any aggressive committee chairman. 
Whenever they are in conflict with the committee, they will simply say 
to their agency people: ``Do not worry about it, just stall and we will 
out wait them.'' Most of the time they would win under these 
propositions.
  I also believe that small States like mine would very seldom be able 
to see Members of their delegation rise to chairmanships because if 
there were no long-term development of seniority, I think the large 
States would simply divide up the major chairmanships and the major 
committee assignments for themselves.
  I would like to pay tribute in this debate to people like the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], not because he agrees with me but 
simply because he is true to his conscience and is not engaged in a 
cynical double game. He does the country honor by playing it straight. 
And in my view, he does that on virtually every issue that is before 
the House. That is why I think he is a very valuable Member for the 
House and that is why I believe that if we had more like him, we would 
not be engaged in this charade today.
  So I would simply say, let us not really even give credibility to 
this ``let's pretend'' process. We all understand that many of the 
sponsors of this proposal are in a very uncomfortable position. They 
promised something they never dreamed they would have to deliver on, 
and now I think we have an elaborate charade to pretend that they 
tried.
  I do not think that does any real service to the American people. I 
think we ought to play it straight and lay out our views on this issue 
honestly. That is what I think the gentleman from Illinois has done 
today.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  I stand up in strong support of term limits. I want to address some 
of the remarks that I have heard here this morning, specifically the 
suggestion that this is a cynical attempt on the part of House 
Republicans to fulfill something that they never intended to have 
happen in the first place.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is there is a 
cynical amendment that will be on the floor today, a very cynical 
amendment. And the reason that it is cynical is that it has been 
brought by Members, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the 
gentleman from Massachusetts 
 [[Page H3896]] [Mr. Frank], by individuals who have very publicly 
stated they are absolutely opposed to term limits. And they are 
bringing this amendment with retroactivity in the belief that it will 
somehow embarrass and that it will somehow create problems for our 
side.
  But the reason that it is cynical is that they have absolutely no 
intention whatsoever of voting for it on final passage. Let us say that 
under these queen of the hill rules the Dingell amendment actually gets 
the most number of votes. The question is, are they going to then vote 
for it on final? I wanted to be able to ask that question of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez]. I looked for Mr. Gutierrez, he 
spoke glowingly of the Dingell amendment. He spoke disparagingly of all 
three of the Republican amendments. Is Mr. Gutierrez going to vote on 
final in favor of the Dingell amendment if that gets the most number of 
votes?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Gutierrez] were, would that change the gentleman's opinion of what is 
going on?
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, it would change my opinion with respect to 
Mr. Gutierrez, sure, it would. I would think that that is not cynical. 
That is not hypocritical. . . .
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the gentleman's words be 
taken down.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words objected to.

                              {time}  1243

  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw those 
specific words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, what words 
was it the gentleman would like to withdraw?
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the word 
hypocritical.
  Mr. DINGELL. What about the word cynical?
  Mr. HOKE. In reference to you directly, Mr. Dingell, ``cynical.''
  Mr. DINGELL. Did the gentleman also wish to apologize?
  Mr. HOKE. No, I did not.
  Mr. DINGELL. He did not wish to apologize. Then I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue.
  The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       I had specific conversation with the gentleman from 
     Michigan, and he stated to me very clearly that it is his 
     intention to vote against this bill on final. Now, if that is 
     not a cynical manipulation and exploitation of the American 
     public, then what is? What could be more cynical? What could 
     be more hypocritical.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will now rise.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Torkildsen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Klug, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, certain words used in debate 
were objected to and on request were taken down and read at the Clerk's 
desk and he does now report the same to the House.
  The Clerk will report the words objected to in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       I had specific conversation with the gentleman from 
     Michigan, and he stated to me very clearly that it is his 
     intention to vote against this bill on final. Now, if that is 
     not a cynical manipulation and exploitation of the American 
     public, then what is? What could be more cynical? What could 
     be more hypocritical?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, ascribing 
hypocrisy to another Member has been ruled out of order in the past, 
and is unparliamentary.
  Without objection, the words are stricken from the record.
  There was no objection.
  Without objection, the gentleman may proceed in order.
  Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker. I have been 
waiting for an apology from the gentleman. I know he wants to apologize 
and does not want to leave these things on the record, because I am 
sure he realizes that it reflects unfavorably upon him, as it does upon 
me, so I am waiting for the apology. I know the gentleman wants to give 
it to me.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Dingell, I very clearly stated that I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my words, and I requested that that be done. You 
objected to that.
  Mr. HOKE. I have told you on the Record that I will not apologize.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is: Shall the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
they ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 197, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               YEAS--212

     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     [[Page H3897]] Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Gunderson
     McHugh
       

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Archer
     Bliley
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     Gekas
     Hayes
     Hilleary
     Horn
     Jefferson
     Lazio
     Moakley
     Oxley
     Parker
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Souder
     Stokes
     Waxman
     Williams
     Yates

                              {time}  1308

  Mr. MURTHA, Mr. EDWARDS, Ms. KAPTUR, and Mr. HILLIARD changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. McHUGH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``present.''
  So the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] was allowed to proceed in 
order.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the nature of his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair to clarify the vote 
that was just taken. It is my understanding that words were taken down, 
words uttered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and those words 
were determined by the Speaker to be out of order. At which point, if I 
recall correctly, the words were stricken, and the Chair stated a 
unanimous-consent request that the gentleman be able to proceed.
  There was objection to that unanimous-consent request, at which 
point, if I am not mistaken, the Chair then stated a motion to give the 
gentleman the opportunity to proceed and speak.
  Is my recollection correct, is that the motion which we just voted 
on?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). The gentleman's 
recollection is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this of the Chair then; 
it is my understanding that the Chair has the right under the rules to 
make a unanimous-consent request that an individual be allowed to 
proceed after his words have been stricken, but in this case I wonder 
if it is the prerogative of the Chair to make such a motion, or whether 
it should have been made by a Member of the body?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has the right to entertain 
unanimous-consent requests. Under previous rulings of the Chair in 
1991, the Chair does have the right to put that question to the body.
  Mr. DURBIN. Beyond the unanimous-consent request?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Beyond the unanimous-consent request, since 
it is ultimately the House's decision, no Member sought to question the 
ruling of the Chair, the question was put to the House.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I might conclude, I would take exception to the 
Chair's statement, and I of course defer to the Chair's authority on 
this question.
  But it would strike me that under these circumstances, once the Chair 
has put the unanimous-consent request and there has been objection, 
that at the very minimum there should be a motion made by a Member of 
the floor. It does not appear to me to be the Chair's right or 
prerogative to try to reinstitute the rights of the individual Member 
to proceed and to speak, once his words have been stricken and 
objection has been voted.
  I also find it unfortunate, I have to say, for both sides of the 
aisle. I will conclude, I find it unfortunate on both sides of the 
aisle that these motions which really go to the decorum of the House 
have been partisan motions, and I understand that in the past our side 
has been guilty as your side has. But if we are to maintain decorum in 
this body I hope we can take a second look at this type of question.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state these rules and 
precedents have been developed over time while both parties have been 
in the majority and those precedents were followed today.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for what purpose does 
the gentleman rise?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand the explanation 
was that the Chair had the right to make a motion, is that, because 
that is what the Chair did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman rising for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I said, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the nature of his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ruling 
the Chair had the right to make a motion in this case. My question is, 
may the Chair make any other motion as well? I mean, in the middle of 
the debate if we had an open rule, could the Chair make an amendment 
during the 5-minute rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not have the right to make a 
motion. Under this circumstance the Chair has the right to put the 
question to the body.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Speaker. There was no question if the Chair had not put the question. 
Someone made a unanimous-consent request. But then I do not understand 
the ruling. No one made the motion. so how can the Chair put a question 
on an unmade motion? There was a unanimous-consent request which was 
objected to. Unanimous consent requests have never, in my experience, 
transmogrified into motions unless someone makes them. So the question 
is, may the Speaker make a motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's point of parliamentary 
inquiry, to the extent the Chair understands it, is whether or not the 
Chair made a motion. The Chair cannot make a motion in the 
circumstance. Under a previous ruling of the Chair, the Chair can put 
the question to the Members without a Member asking that the question 
be put.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. 
What question? If no one had made a motion, what is the question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. And the question is solely limited to 
whether or not the Member can proceed in order.
  Mr. VOLKMER. A parliamentary inquiry. I have a parliamentary inquiry, 
Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the nature of his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The parliamentary inquiry is whether the Chair now plans 
to go back into the Committee of the Whole or the Chair plans to 
recognize the gentleman from Ohio at this time, and it has a lot to do 
with what the gentleman from Missouri that is now speaking does.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). If the gentleman from Ohio 
seeks recognition at this point, the Chair will recognize the gentleman 
from Ohio.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, and I would hope, so we 
can move on, that the gentleman from Ohio would request permission to 
speak.
  [[Page H3898]] The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] rise?

                          ____________________