[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3898-H3909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                APOLOGY FOR MISUNDERSTANDING OF REMARKS

  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOKE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say to the gentleman from Michigan 
that I think it is unfortunate what has occurred and has taken place. 
It was not my intent under any circumstances to direct my remarks in a 
way that you would be personally offended, and if that is the case, my 
remarks are directed at the larger debate with respect to term limits, 
specifically the parliamentary maneuvering that is taking place with 
respect to it and the substance of the debate.
  And certainly, there was no intent on my part, not now, not during 
the debate, not in the future to make comments that would be taken 
personally by you in an offensive way, and to whatever extent you 
perceived them in that way, I am sorry, and I apologize.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I accept the apologies of the gentleman, 
and I thank him.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will resume its sitting.
                              {time}  1316

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
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, 
with Mr. Klug in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
following time remained in debate: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady] had 61\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] had 39\1/2\ minutes remaining; and, finally, the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] had 24 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] for the final 
1 minute.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding.
  I would like to conclude my remarks simply by saying that I rise in 
strong support of term limits today.
  We have waited for many, many years to get this vote to the floor. We 
have had over 24 million Americans already choose in favor of term 
limits. Seventy-five to eighty percent of the Americans that have had 
the opportunity to vote on this have voted in favor of it. They voted 
``yes.''
  Clearly our constituents are saying, ``We want term limits. We want 
term limits now.''
  I urge you to vote in favor of them, and what I would say is if this 
does come down to a partisan fight, what we need is just 50 percent of 
the Democrats to vote in favor of this. We are going to get 90 percent 
of the Republicans. If we can get 50 percent of the Democrats voting in 
favor of it, we are going to pass term limits. We are going to get 290 
votes. That is all we need.
  I urge you to vote in favor of it. If we do not, then so be it. The 
people, the voters, will make this decision in November 1996, and they 
will have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want term 
limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I understand that when I left, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] was wondering where I was it. I was back 
in my office doing the people's business and ensuring that things are 
carried out.
  We speak here, and then we go about our other duties and 
responsibilities, but I understand he had a question, and the question 
may be the motives behind my speech.
  And let me just be very clear with the gentleman from Ohio that he 
can sleep and rest assured that if a term-limit bill comes before this 
House that includes retroactivity, that is, immediacy, 12 years, that 
this gentleman intends to vote for it, and is encouraging and working 
with others to vote for it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a supporter of term limits, and I 
have to say, P.T. Barnum launched the Greatest Show on Earth with the 
idea that a sucker is born every minute.
  Well, it looks like the circus is coming to town a little early, 
because the Republican Party is applying that same philosophy to term 
limits.
  In the Big Top we call the Capitol, there are Members of Congress who 
promise lower taxes, higher defense spending, and a balanced budget all 
at the same time. Now, these career politicians say that they support 
term limits, only if they are not retroactive and do not have a chance 
of passing.
  The long and the short of it is they support term limits as long as 
there is no chance that their own terms might be limited.
  I have news for the political contortionists of Newt's three-ring 
circus, the voters are not as dumb as you think. They believed you when 
you ran on the Contract With America and said you were not interested 
in a career in Washington and would limit your term in office. They 
know the House would pass the Sanford-Deal term-limits statute if it 
were put to an up-or-down vote today, and when you go home and tell 
them that you were for term limits, they will know that it was just a 
show.
  Let me also make it clear I hear a lot of Republicans blaming 
Democrats in case term limits does not pass. The Democrats did not run 
on the Contract With America. Democrats did not say that there is a 
revolution in this country and term limits will be the cornerstone. The 
Republicans did.
  And now there is too much party discipline to get one of the term-
limits bills passed. Well, look, party discipline was not a problem 
when it came to cutting school lunches or preventing Congress from 
passing real lobbyist reform. So we all know the Republican leadership 
can get the votes when they want to.
  The American people who support term limits are about to find out the 
dirty little secret around here: The vast majority of Republicans 
support term limits, but only if it does not apply to them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time we had some 
straight talk on this subject, and I am opposed to the term limits.
  As a former teacher of history and government, I consider myself a 
constitutionalist. The Constitution is a document that stood the test 
of time for two centuries and is the model for emerging democracies 
throughout the world.
  You know, the Founding Fathers got it right. They established term 
limits when they wrote the Constitution. They are called elections. Yet 
here we are today in this debate, and we have heard that the majority 
of the American people, fueled by radio talk shows and pollsters, 
support term limits.
  I believe their instincts are right, but they have come up with the 
wrong solution. We do need congressional turnover experience fresh 
ideas, but we also need that combined with experience and expertise and 
institutional memory for more senior Members.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a learning curve to every job. The same is 
true for new Members of Congress. To impose automatic term limits would 
generally increase the power of paid congressional staff, unelected 
lobbyists, unelected government bureaucrats and regulators. This is 
something the people have not figured out yet.
  I would also submit that term limits will only exacerbate the so-
called revolving-door syndrome, elected officials spending their time 
and energy while in office paving the way for a lucrative job in the 
private sector with the special-interest groups they have been serving 
after they leave office. Automatic term limits will intensify 
 [[Page H3899]] and institutionalize the resume-building that already 
occurs all too often in this Congress.
  Voters already have the power to limit the terms of elected officials 
by exercising that right in the voting booth.
  The most graphic evidence of this was seen in the last two 
congressional elections. As you know, large numbers of sitting Members, 
people right in here in this room, were elected to the point where 
nearly one-half of all House Members here today have served less than 3 
years. The public spoke in the ballot box in the best tradition of 
democratic government.
  And finally, I want to say that I recognize and I share the 
widespread public concern regarding the inevitable advantage 
congressional incumbents enjoy over their election challengers. I know 
something about this, because I had to defeat an entrenched incumbent 
to get here.
  But congressional term limits are not the answer. The answer is 
genuine campaign finance reform, abolition of PAC's, limits on out-of-
State fundraising, a ban on corporate soft money, and free access to 
radio and television time.
  Mr. Chairman, we need reform, but term limits are not the solution. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman be aware 
the Founding Fathers were aware of term limits and actually, in the 
articles, there was term limits that was not enacted?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I have read the article as well. That is not my reading 
of the Constitution, and finally, the Constitution was adopted with 2-
year terms.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentlewoman's very trenchant observations--and historically correct.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I respectfully disagree with my colleague from New Jersey and the 
opponents of term limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of term limits.
  Mr. Chairman, we have all seen the faces of angry voters. They want a 
change. They are tired of the status quo. They want Congress to work.
  As a freshman Member who came here to change the status quo, I was 
proud to join with my colleagues to change the Rules of the House on 
our opening of the 104th Congress.
  Back in January, we voted for term limits for the Speaker of the 
House. And on that first historic day, we voted for term limits for our 
committee chairmen.
  Now, it is time to vote for term limits for the rest of us.
  This will be the first time on this floor that we have had the 
opportunity to vote on term limits. And just as we voted overwhelmingly 
to reform Congress on that opening day, I urge my colleagues to vote 
yes on term limits.
  Term limits is about changing Congress--it is about changing the 
status quo. That is why I ran for office in the first place, and 
changing Congress is why I am here today.
  Opponents say that we don't need term limits. That the elections in 
1992 and 1994 show that the people can change Congress anytime they 
want to.
  Yet from 1976 through 1994, 9 out of every 10 incumbents were re-
elected. Nine out of every 10 Members of Congress can pretty much count 
on having a political career in Congress as long as they want it.
  Term limits will change that. It will create elections for open 
seats. It will ensure that we have new Members of Congress, who come 
here with different backgrounds, different experiences, and fresh 
ideas.
  The concept of our democracy is that real people--average citizens--
make the decisions that will effect us as a nation. Term limits will 
ensure that more Members of the House and the Senate have that real 
world experience.
  Mr. Chairman, the people who elected us are watching. At least two-
thirds of the American people support term limits and they want to see 
what we are going to do.
  There is no place to hide on this vote. Will we vote to keep business 
as usual? Or are we willing to accept term limits on ourselves in order 
to create a better Congress.
  The American people will be watching to see who votes for 
congressional reform, and who votes to keep the status quo. And make no 
mistake, they will remember.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on term limits, vote ``yes'' on 
final passage. And vote yes to end the status quo.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to these four substitutes 
which we will be voting on today.
  As has been pointed out, we had term limitations on November 8, 1994, 
where the organizations of both the House and the Senate certainly were 
changed. Fifty-two percent of the members of the House of 
Representatives have been elected since 1990.
  Mr. Chairman, excuse the personal reference, but talking about the 
Montgomery GI bill, which is an educational benefit for our active 
forces as well as the National Guard and Reserve.
  Our forces in the 1970's were having problems. We were not getting 
the quality into the military. So we had to come up with something to 
attract these people into the Guard and Reserve and the active forces. 
We came up with educational benefits. We started working to help the 
military to get the motivated young men and women into the Service in 
the 1980's. Mr. Chairman, it took us 5 years to get the educated 
benefits enacted into law. We had the same bill number, H.R. 1400, and 
we used it from year to year. Finally, in 1985, we were able to get 
this legislation into law, which gave educational benefits to the 
military service.
  After 1985 it took us 5 years to actually get the program 
implemented, to be used by the different Services. Now it is working 
well. Over 95 percent of the young men and women who come into the 
Service used these educational benefits.
  My point is that major legislation, if you are in Congress, it takes 
longer than 4 or 8 years. It took 10 years to get this type of 
implementation of something that really helped our country.
  So I say again that you cannot do major legislation in 6 years, it 
takes longer. You have to pass the bill, then you have to nurse it 
through the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I am working on a 2-year contract with the people of 
the Third District of Mississippi. They have chosen to renew that 
contract over the years. They should continue to have that right 
without having a term limitation imposed upon them.
  I ask you to vote ``no'' on the four substitutes and ``No'' on final 
passage.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], that when you blame the Republicans for not 
passing term limits and just say, ``You have party discipline,'' I 
would remind him that, as best I know, we have 230 votes and it takes 
290 on vote to pass a constitutional amendment. We simply cannot do it 
by ourselves. My home State of Arkansas has passed term limits. It has 
been a very positive development. It has meant new blood, it has meant 
fresh ideas. It has meant different perspectives. And it will mean the 
same thing for the U.S. House of Representatives.
  In Arkansas, it strengthened the political system by increasing 
responsiveness and accountability. It will 
 [[Page H3900]] move us in this body toward a true citizen legislature.
  Long-term tenure too often results in Members becoming allies of big 
government, not checks on big government. Members lose touch with their 
constituents. Members become arrogant and, too often, they become 
elitist when they stay here for long tenures.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1990, 22 States, including Arkansas, have passed 
laws respecting tenure of Federal legislators. Recent polls indicate 
that 70 to 80 percent of the American people support term limits. 
Critics say, ``Don't limit the choice the American people have by 
imposing limits.'' I say, don't thwart the choice of the American 
people by stopping term limits. That is their desire. We should pass 
it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of difficulty with this issue because the 
Republicans have survived over 200 years without term limits mainly 
because everybody knows we have term limits every 2 years when we are 
up for election. That makes all the sense in the world to me. If you 
really think about it, the dream debate I wish we could have on this 
would be for everybody to have their ``spoil date'' on their foreheads; 
in other words, determining whether you are going to have 6 years, 12 
years, figure out when you came and then put your ``spoil date'' cross 
your forehead.
  Now, if it had been in effect when I got elected, my ``spoil date'' 
under 12 years would have been January 1985. If it had been 6 years, it 
would have been January of 1979. Those would have been my ``spoil 
dates.''
  I do not really feel I was rotten at that time, and I do not feel I 
am rotten now. I think if you look at many, many people who would have 
``spoil dates'' which would have expired long ago and have them talking 
about term limits, you begin to wonder what this is really all about.
  Well, I think I am beginning to get a little idea of what it is 
about. You know, human nature is such that people love to make laws for 
other people but hate to have them apply to themselves. Of course, 
because Congress is made up of human beings, we have that same problem 
too. But I think it has been really interesting this year that we have 
been willing to limit school lunches, we have been willing to take on 
student loans and limit those. We have been willing to limit the number 
of children on foster care. We have been able to limit all sorts of 
things that did not affect us. And now we have a term limits bill that 
will be wonderful. We can pass it, pose for holy pictures, and, guess 
what, it still will not affect us, because here I would be standing 
with my ``spoil date'' of January 1985 if it had been in effect for 12 
years after I got elected, and if it passes today I can still go for at 
least another 12 years plus how long it takes to adopt this thing.
  Now, that is pretty remarkable. In other words, what we are talking 
about here are term limits that will only apply to other people, other 
people who will come in the future. So this is a great kind of reform. 
We will reform the new guys whom we know will never be quite as good as 
we old guys were.
  Now, I just think that that really puts it down where everybody, 
hopefully, begins to understand it. We also hear people talking about 
the reason for this is the citizen legislature. Well, now, if you are 
really going to have a citizen legislature, the way you would do that 
is to say that you are going to run for only one office and that is it. 
Because the other thing term limits does, as we know from countries 
like Mexico that have it, you create a new professional class that 
hopscotches around the chairs of government. If you are a Member of 
Congress, you are going to be a mayor and you are going to be a 
Governor, and you go on and on and on and on and on.
  The great thing about that is you never learn any of the jobs very 
well and you continually are trying to figure out how you could use the 
job you are in now to get the next job you want later.
  So term limits do not do anything about citizen legislatures or 
citizen government, if you look at the countries that have tried it and 
found out they ended up with a more professional government than we 
ever dreamed of.
  I think this is all about the relationship between the person and the 
district they come from. That district can have that option to reelect 
them or not reelect them. That is their choice under the Constitution. 
That is what it should be.
  But to decide that some term limits should apply to every single 
person no matter how well off they are, I think is very artificial, it 
does not belong in the Constitution, and I certainly hope that we can 
have a little more thoughtfulness before we eagerly run out and do 
something that does not apply to us, it will only apply in the future, 
and call it reform and think that we helped.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, politics is the science of government. 
Government reflects the people's interest or neglect. Too often it is 
the latter. In the last election roughly 50 percent of the people 
didn't vote--most of them, I suppose, because they didn't have enough 
interest in government to vote. But then enough people did have enough 
interest in government in the last election to vote a monumental change 
of control of the Congress.
  Are we to now draw a conclusion that the people of this land can 
enjoy all the blessings of representative government in the future by 
giving up a significant portion of the most fundamental responsibility 
of citizenship--full participation in the choice of our political 
leaders? For more than 200 years we have changed people in office 
through elections. Why, in this generation, has it become such a burden 
that we must find some automatic, no-bother way to help us do the job? 
Doesn't freedom, personal responsibility, tradition, respect for 
experience, mean anything? These are values that ordinarily mean a lot 
to conservative people.
  Do we believe that a competitive and accountable political 
marketplace can't work; that people can't decide for themselves when 
and who to vote out of office and who to keep? Do we really believe 
experience in Congress or, for that matter, in any other public office, 
is a handicap?
  Didn't James Madison, one of our Nation's Founding Fathers, state a 
point when he observed that ``a few of the members (of Congress) * * * 
will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become 
members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public 
business * * *''? Do we reject this?
  Why should we now limit the democratic right of ``we the people'' to 
select their representatives in the House of the people--the U.S. House 
of Representatives?
  I am not persuaded that term limits is a wise course for a free and 
democratic people; it subtracts--not adds--from the Bill of Rights of 
the people. The burden and responsibility for determining term limits 
belong fully and irrevocably to the people who care enough to vote.
  I have examined whether a 12-year term limitation would be an 
effective long-term solution to Congress' problems. While at first 
glance term limits are an appealing quick and easy fix, I have always 
felt there are many problems with term limitations.
  It is a little known fact that the great majority of Congress already 
turns over every 12 years. Of the 435 Members
 of the House of Representatives serving 5 years ago, less than one-
half are serving today.

  We already have a mechanism to ``throw the rascals out.'' It's called 
an election. All 435 members of the House face election every 2 years. 
At these intervals, incumbents must face the voters and win their 
active approval. Citizens who dislike their incumbent Congressman 
already have a powerful tool to remove them--the vote. Members of the 
House can be challenged twice every two years (in a primary and general 
election). And, this is precisely what happened last November 8, when 
voters imposed term limits on much of the 103d Congress.
  One argument for term limits is that we will get enlightened 
amateurs--people who will leave top posts in commerce, industry, and 
other professions to spend a few years in 
 [[Page H3901]] Washington before returning home. In practice, it is 
becoming increasingly difficult to attract and keep the best and the 
brightest, in part because of term limits.
  Moreover, like anyone taking a new job, there is a learning curve. In 
Congress, it can be a long curve. As much as we desire simplified 
government and policy, it is impossible to imagine government getting 
less complicated, given the incredible complexity of the world economy, 
the enormity of a $6 trillion domestic economy, and the mind-boggling 
$1.5 trillion Federal budget and the thousands of programs it entails. 
As a result, I fear that term-limited members would be more dependent 
on staff and more influenced by special interests.
  Term limitation advocates correctly point out that some incumbent 
Congressman use the advantages of their office unfairly--but there are 
ways to eliminate these unfair advantages without eliminating the 
fundamental democratic right of Americans to vote for the candidate of 
their choice.
  I have cosponsored and/or voted for the following congressional 
reforms to: Sharply curtail unsolicited congressional mailings; reduce 
congressional staff; eliminate congressional perks and make Congress 
subject to the same laws it mandates on the private sector; fully 
enforce congressional ethics and disclosure rules; enact congressional 
finance reforms; and, mandate that members rotate House committee 
membership. The new House of Representatives has instituted a 6-year 
limit on committee and subcommittee chairmanships--this is the type of 
limit I support.
  Along with internal congressional reform there are also reforms that 
could be made to the budget process that would be far more effective in 
controlling spending than term limits. For instance, I have cosponsored 
the following reforms: Legislation amending the Constitution of the 
United States to require that the Federal budget be balanced, and 
legislation giving the President the authority to line-item veto 
appropriation bills, thereby giving the President the power to veto 
pork barrel and other wasteful spending projects.
  What concerns me most about term limitations is the implicit 
assumption that people cannot be trusted to make up their own minds 
about who should represent them. Term limit advocates presume that 
people are too easily influenced by incumbency, that they are too 
readily gulled by professional politicians. Term limit advocates seem 
to believe that free citizens are unable to make the changes they feel 
necessary in the political process.
  I want to stress that my views of term limits do not result from my 
position as an incumbent in Congress. The fact is that I would not gain 
by voting for this measure; by the time the term limits would take 
effect, I will likely have retired from Congress.
  I believe that most Americans know that Democracy is not easy. 
``Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,'' said Thomas Jefferson. 
Term limits are a false cure to a problem that can only be solved by an 
electorate willing to hold their representatives accountable. That is 
why our Founding Fathers twice rejected term limits.
  I encourage my constituents to look into my record and hold me 
accountable. I believe my effectiveness in pursuing the objectives of 
the voters of the 13th district--cutting billions of dollars in 
wasteful spending, for instance--is increasing each year. This 
effectiveness is in large part due to what I've learned as a Member of 
Congress--about the budget process and the rules of the House, to name 
just two.
  In the end, I believe that we the people should be the final arbiters 
of who should represented us. A set limit only curtails our choices.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the founding fathers did not intend for Congress to be 
a career. And Congress was not a career, by and large, for the first 
150 years or so of our history.
  But in recent decades it has come to pass that the people who run 
this institution are people who have been around for a long time. They 
get out of touch, become unresponsive, they are more a part of the 
Washington culture than the culture which elected them.
  We are told this is not a problem because we have term limits in the 
form of a 2-year term in the Constitution for Members of Congress. But 
the fact is that incumbents have so many advantages in the late 20th 
century that that 2-year limit is meaningless in most instances for 
most incumbents.
  Gerrymandering protects incumbents, particularly those with 
considerable seniority.
  Campaign finance patterns protect incumbents, particularly those with 
considerable seniority.
  Campaign finance patterns protect incumbents. In the 1992 election 
cycle, 50 percent of challengers received less than $90,000. The median 
receipts for incumbents were nearly $500,000. You cannot oust an 
incumbent if you do not have a minimal amount of money.
  We have other benefits that come with out incumbency, such as the 
franking privileges. Even if it is not used for overtly political 
reasons, it allows us to keep in touch with our constituents in a way 
that a challenger would never be able to do.
                              {time}  1345

  We have a million dollars a year in staff allowances, and we have 
easy access to the press. Even if we do not use these assets in a way 
that is overtly political, if we simply do our job right, if we simply 
do the casework for the people who come to us with their problems, it 
will be very difficult for us to be defeated.
  So, no wonder, even in a year when the gentleman from Illinois said 
that we had monumental change in the Nation, even in 1994, we still 
reelected as a Nation more than 90 percent of the incumbents who chose 
to stand for reelection. That is not a 2-year contract. That is a 
contract for life, barring an extraordinary local political upheaval or 
being caught in an ethical or legal problem. I think that that is not 
in keeping with the vision of the Founding Fathers who intended for 
Congress continually to reflect the views of the people who elected us. 
The only sure way to accomplish that objective in this age with this 
many incumbent advantages is through term limits.
  Now I do support reforming redistricting law, I do support reforming 
campaign finance law, and I support franking reform. But even after we 
have accomplished all of those reforms one by one, we will not have 
dealt with a problem that still exists, which is that it is too 
difficult to oust an incumbent, it is too difficult to have a 
competitive election in this day and age. That is why, my colleagues, 
we should support term limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking subcommittee member from whose 
committee term limits came.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have heard some 
fascinating arguments today. My favorite though is the one where 
Republicans get up and say that they could pass this very important 
item in their contract if they only got 50 percent of the Democrats. 
Now that is a fascinating concept.
  Mr. Chairman, the University of Massachusetts', my home State, 
basketball team did very well in a recent tournament, and they lost, 
but, if they had only gotten 50 percent of the points of their 
opponents, they would have won. I mean Massachusetts lost a 
congressional seat in the last redistricting, but, if we could have 
only gotten 50 percent of the population of our friends from 
Connecticut, we would have a couple more seats.
  I say to my colleagues,

       I think this is a wonderful concept. You promised to do 
     something, and then you say, ``By the way, my promise is 
     conditioned,'' after the fact of course, after they get 
     people to do what they want, they then say, `Oh, by the way, 
     if I can get 50 percent of the opposition to be with me, then 
     I'll win.

  Well, I think that is pretty good odds, and I will make this 
statement on behalf of the Democratic Party, and I do not, I do not 
often, speak for the whole Democratic Party, but anytime we get 50 
percent of the support of the Republicans, we will accomplish our goal.
  I say to my colleagues,

       Now, if this is your idea of a contract, that you tell 
     people you're going to do something, you forgot to mention 
     that you wouldn't be able to do it unless you got 50 percent 
     of the opposition--if this is your idea of the contract, no 
     wonder you don't like the Federal Trade Commission, no wonder 
     you want to make it harder for people to sue, because you 
     would be in serious difficulty, but let's get beyond this 
     wonderful concept that I can do anything I promise you if 50 
     percent of the opposition would be with me.

  We are told this is the first time this has come to the floor. Last 
year, what about a discharge petition? Well, finally toward the end 
they filed a discharge petition. They got about a hundred Republicans 
to sign it.
  Mr. Chairman, there are more people in this body voting yes and 
praying no 
 [[Page H3902]] on term limits than there are on pay raises.
  Yes, term limits gets a lot of lip service, but there are not many 
teeth behind it. The people here got the longest extended lips I have 
ever
 seen, and I suppose, if they had 50 percent of our lips, they would go 
even further on that wonderful, give me half of what you got and I can 
have more than you have policy, which I think is a very attractive 
policy. I mean we would not have an export-import problem with Japan if 
Japan would give us half of their exports. Our balance of trade would 
be 100 percent. That would be very good.

  I keep going back to that concept because I love it, and I am going 
to borrow from it from time to time, but it is also clear that the 
Republican Party's commitment to term limits is rather slender.
  Now I understand the problem. They had to really break some arms to 
do welfare last week. They are going to have to break some arms to do 
taxes next week. Do my colleagues know the problem that the Republican 
leadership has? Their Members only have two arms. The grab one arm for 
welfare, they grab one arm for taxes. They got nothing left. But do my 
colleagues know what? If they would take 50 percent of our arms, then 
they would all have three arms, and then they could do it because they 
could twist three arms. That is the problem. Once again it is the magic 
50-percent solution.
  I say to my colleagues,

       If you could take one arm for welfare, and one arm for 
     taxes, and then you could take 50 percent of our arms, then 
     you could twist a third arm for term limits, but the term 
     limits supporters should know that they're getting the third 
     arm. That's what you're giving the term limits people; you're 
     giving them ice in the winter. You are saying, yes, you'll 
     give them some votes. There's very little energy on the other 
     side.

  By the way, I think that makes perfect sense because one of the 
things we would be doing wrong, if by some miracle we pass this, and no 
one, including their side, expects that--one of the things we would be 
doing wrong would be for the first time amending the Constitution in a 
way that detracted from popular choice. Constitutional amendments have 
expanded the options of the voters. Women have been allowed to vote. 
Blacks; we erased that terrible sin in America. Eighteen-year-olds. 
This would be the first time the Senate went to popular election. This 
would be the first time we took something back.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I say, ``In this case I'm glad you don't have our 
50 percent.''
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, term limits is a bad idea. 
Where I come from we have a saying, ``If the pump ain't broke don't fix 
it.'' Over 50 percent of the Members of this body have come since 1990. 
That is 4 years, or less, experience. Now that is turning them over 
pretty fast.
  Who will challenge an incumbent? Everybody says it is tough to 
challenge an incumbent. I say, ``Well, if you know he's only going to 
be there for 6 years, who would bother to challenge? Who would go try 
to raise money? Who would contribute money and say, `Well, wait your 
turn. he's going to be gone in 4 more years, and then you can run.'''
  No, Mr. Chairman, it is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because today 
committee staff has too much say-so, and, if we do term limits, they 
will be omnipotent because they will be the only ones who know--with an 
institutional memory to know how this place works.
  Finally, history. I am privileged to represent a district that was 
once represented by James Madison himself. As my colleagues know, under 
the Articles of Confederation, we had term limits. Under the Articles 
of Confederation the founders said, ``You cannot serve more than 3 
years in a 6-year period,'' but in 1787, at the Constitutional 
Convention in Philadelphia, after a long argument, they took it out.
  Robert Livingston said, ``This is not democracy, term limits. You're 
limiting the voters' choice.''
  James Madison said, ``Frequent elections; that's the answer, that a 
voter should be able to decide whether he wants somebody new or whether 
he wants somebody with experience,'' and that is the way it ought to be 
today, and that is the way it ought to be tomorrow.
  Please vote this down.
  Mr. Chairman, the public's disdain is the people's greatest check on 
Congress. The power unleashed by the people on November 8, 1994, was 
another chapter in history's greatest example of man ruling man: 
democracy in America. As the current occupant of the congressional seat 
once held by James Madison, the father of the Constitution, I oppose 
congressional term limits.
  Term limits are not consistent with freedom and the political 
institutions that make it possible to live free--the rule of law, 
democracy, and individual liberties. Term limits proponents hypothesize 
that shortened tenures in Congress will revitalize American democracy, 
but the consequence of term limits would actually be a limitation of 
democracy.
  Term limits do more than limit the terms of public officials. They 
limit the choices of the voters. Why should we deny American citizens 
the full democratic principles our Nation was established upon?
  When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787, they gathered 
for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. During that 
summer, James Madison and the Founding Fathers' concept of democracy 
was far more limited than it is today. The concept of rotation in 
office was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which provided 
that delegates to Congress could serve for no more than 3 years in any 
6-year period. After extensive debate, the Founding Fathers rejected 
these term limits, citing the right of the people to freely elect and 
the importance of experienced legislators. Robert Livingston stated 
during the debates:

       The people are the best judges who ought to represent them. 
     To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not 
     elect is to abridge their natural rights * * * We all know 
     experience is indispensably necessary to good government. 
     Shall we, then, drive experience into obscurity? I repeat 
     that this is an absolute abridgement of the people's rights.
  The Founding Fathers made a conscious decision to do away with term 
limits. They left this matter to the judgment of the people; not only 
because they trusted the people but because it was the logically proper 
place to leave it. In view of the deliberate rejection by the Founding 
Fathers, it appears that the Constitution's
 qualification clauses can only be interpreted as a prohibition on the 
States from limiting the reelection of their congressional delegations. 
Thus, the policy of State-imposed term limits was rejected.

  How did Madison propose to protect the society--especially the 
supreme values of liberty and property--against the encroachment of a 
potentially ignorant majority which could be swayed by demagogues? 
Madison knew from history that such a peril did exist. But the answer, 
Madison argued, lay not in depriving the people at large of any voice 
in the Government but in increasing group interest and participation.
  From 1776 on, Madison was almost continuously in public life until 
his retirement from the Presidency in 1817. James Madison served in the 
Virginia House of Delegates, Continental Congress, the Constitutional 
Convention, four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Secretary 
of State, and President for 8 years. In the name of returning power to 
the people, term-limit proponents would have denied the Nation 
Madison's wisdom and experience in the early days of the Constitution 
and the Bill of Rights.
  In Federalist No. 57, James Madison queried: ``Who are to be the 
electors of the Federal representatives? The electors are the great 
body of the people of the United States,'' Madison responded. Madison 
studied the bond between the people and the elected representative. 
Madison found this bond ``involving every security which can be devised 
or desired for their fidelity to their constituents.'' The citizens 
would have distinguished the representative with their preference in 
the electoral process. Second, the adulation of victory would have 
produced an ``affection at least to their constitutions'' as they enter 
public service.
  Madison also observed:

       All these securities however would be found very 
     insufficient without the restraint of frequent elections. The 
     House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in 
     the Members a habitual recollection of their dependence on 
     their people.

  The majesty of democracy is an informed electorate, and the ballot 
box is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. To deny the 
people's basic democratic right to have whoever they choose to serve at 
their pleasure is a vote of no confidence in American democracy. Why 
should we deny the voters this right? They possess both the ability to 
throw out representatives who are ineffective and keep those who serve 
them well.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
 [[Page H3903]] consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today as a strong 
supporter of term limits.
  For too long, the U.S. Capitol has been filled with career 
politicians and the special interests to which they are beholden. I 
campaigned for term limits and am pleased that I will be able to 
fulfill that pledge this week. On my own, I have promised the people of 
the Fourth District that I will serve no more than five terms, and I 
intend to keep that pledge, too.
  Our action this week is significant, because the American people have 
long been ahead of Congress on the issue of term limits. In the last 5 
years, 22 States have adopted term-limits legislation.
  Career politicians have become the norm in Washington, with turnover 
in this body running at only 10 percent. And the prevalence of career 
politicians have created the tremendous debt problem we face today. 
According to the National Taxpayer's Union Foundation, House Members 
who have been here more than 8 years supported an average of 55 percent 
more spending than Members with less than 8 years of service. The 
numbers in the Senate are even more stark, as those in their first term 
voted for 8.5 times less spending than their more senior colleagues.
  Limiting the terms of Members of Congress will open our Government to 
more citizen involvement and will make the legislature more responsive 
to the American people. Term limits are strongly supported by the vast 
majority of the American people. And those who stand in the way of term 
limits will have to answer for their arrogance at the polls next 
November.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of 
term limits. I urge them to heed the wishes of their constituents. And 
I urge them to have the courage to make Congress a legislature which is 
truly of the people.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, being in 
Congress is a good job by anybody's standard, the pay at $130,000 a 
year, good retirement benefits, good health benefits. But I ask, ``What 
happens when you're a career politician, and you don't have those job 
opportunities outside, and you want to stay with this job that you've 
decided is the way you want to live and raise your family?''
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues what my observation is. It 
is: ``You become somewhat more susceptible to those forces that might 
threaten that job, so, as you look at the special interest lobbyists, 
and when they come to you with threats and money for your next 
election, I would suggest that you're a little more considerate of 
their point of view if you think they have the opportunity to discharge 
you from what's a good job here in Congress.''
  Career politicians that want to perpetuate themselves in office have 
become abusive with their power to the extent that we have jeopardized 
the future of this economy. Look what we have done:
  We have increased the Federal debt by $5 trillion. We spent $5 
trillion on a welfare program of putting poor people into their own 
sect and making them worse off.
  As far as what the history is of the Founding Fathers, certainly 
American democracy starts with the Athenian democracy, but a lot of it 
comes from John Locke, the British philosopher who says government is 
simply a nuisance that we have to put up with to deal with some of the 
inconveniences. His position was that we should not have to have the 
kind of giant government for people to interact and deal with 
themselves in society, and I call to the Members' attention what 
happened when we reexamined the Constitution in the year 1788 and 
thereabouts.
  It was George Mason that said, ``Nothing is going to make that 
legislator more conscious of the decisions that he or she makes than 
having to return to his home community and live under the laws which he 
passed.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler], a member of our Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the popular, but 
misguided, idea of term limits. The push for term limits is profoundly 
antidemocratic. It takes away the right of the people to choose 
whomever they want as their Representatives in free elections.
  What arguments have we heard for limiting the right of people to 
choose their Representatives? We are told that incumbents are too 
entrenched and that challengers do not have a fair chance of unseating 
them. Well, nearly half of this House has been elected for the first 
time since 1992, and I am part of that new wave. Senior Members, 
committee chairmen, even the Speaker, have been voted out of office. 
Entrenched incumbency just does not seem to be what it used to be.
  Still, Mr. Chairman, it is true that incumbents often do have an 
unfair advantage in elections. We should remedy that unfair advantage 
by passing meaningful campaign finance reform, including giving 
challengers access to the publicly owned airwaves so the voters will 
have an opportunity to learn more about them. That is how to battle the 
problem of entrenched incumbency, by making elections more fair and 
more democratic, not by making them less democratic, carelessly casting 
aside the right to vote for which Americans have struggled and died for 
more than two centuries.
  Besides, if term limits is my colleagues' solution to making 
elections more fair, what they are really saying is, ``Let's have a 
fair election once every 12 years; once every 6 years let's have a fair 
election. The others, let them be one sided.'' That is ridiculous. 
Every election should be a fair and free election. Campaign finance 
reform, not term limits, is the way to make that happen.
  We are told that politicians who have to worry about reelection often 
fail to do the right thing and, therefore, term limits would promote 
better government. What a vile, elitist idea. We have elections 
precisely because we want our Representatives to be always mindful of 
what the people want. The word for that is ``accountability,'' and 
accountability to the people is what good government in a free society 
is all about.
  A lame duck, who is more likely to be thinking about his or her next 
job instead of thinking about representing the people as they wished to 
be represented will be more accountable to the special interests with 
jobs to offer than to the people whose ballot will be debased to 
irrelevance.
                              {time}  1400

  Let us not replace the ballot box with the revolving door as the 
symbol of our democracy. We will always have Representatives who 
believe they know better on a given matter than their constituents, and 
from time to time they may be right. They have the responsibility to do 
and vote as they believe to be right, and then to try to persuade the 
voters that they were right or that they nonetheless merit reelection. 
But a free people has the ultimate right and responsibility to control 
its own destiny and to live with the consequences of their judgments. 
We should not take away or restrict that freedom.
  There is one final argument that must be answered, that Congress 
should be composed solely of people serving relatively short stints 
before returning to their real careers, that a career in service to 
one's community and country is somehow dishonorable.
  I reject that. We have elections to ensure that the people retain the 
power to judge the quality of their representation. But if they deem 
that representation to be good and honorable, then they should be 
permitted to continue it if they want. Are we to deny the people the 
right to choose modern-day Henry Clays or Daniel Webster if they want 
to? The proponents of term limits would say yes. I say no. I believe we 
should be about democracy and accountability, and I therefore oppose 
this dangerous, antidemocratic, and fundamentally elitist 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn].
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear over and 
over that somehow this is anti-democratic, yet through the Democratic 
process 
 [[Page H3904]] State after State after State has adopted term limits. 
Now, many States are not as fortunate as we in Oregon are because we 
have an initiative and referendum process that allows us to do that. 
Other people do not. So we need to step forward as Congress and make 
that happen.
  One of the things that is very, very clear today is that this has to 
be bipartisan. There simply are not enough Republicans. With 230 
Members, every Republican voting for this cannot make it happen.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not have my copy of the contract. 
Would you show me the footnote in the contract where it says this one 
is dependent on getting 50 percent of the Democrats?
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if you read the 
contract, you would know very clearly the contract commits to bring 
this to the floor, have an open debate and a vote for the first time. 
Now, I am a Republican that did not sign the contract, but at least I 
know what it says. It says we will get this to the floor, which we have 
done, and we will give it a vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, 
simply by having this brought up and defeated you have satisfied the 
contract?
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Absolutely not. By finally bringing it to the 
floor, we have given the American people the opportunity, and if the 
Democrats will cooperate, we will deliver to the American people what 
they deserve.
  Now, I am willing, if the Democrats can get their version through, I 
will vote for it. And if the Republicans can get their version through, 
I challenge you to vote for it. There are four versions coming to us 
today, every one of which is better than the status quo, and I am 
willing to support any one. Whether they are retroactive or 
prospective, whether they are in the 6 or 12 years, the people have a 
right to term limits.
  We are going to deliver two-thirds of the Republican votes and 
better. Can you deliver two-thirds of the Democrat votes? I do not 
think so. And if term limits fail, it is going to be once again the 
Democrats have thwarted the will of the American people. It is about 
time that you line up and support term limits, support a unified 
bipartisan effort. we can make a difference.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, today the Republican majority is 
keeping its promise to take the historic step of bringing term limits 
to the floor for a full and fair vote.
  Never in history has a proposal to limit congressional terms been 
allowed to come to the floor.
  When I first ran for Congress in 1992, I pledged to live by self-
imposed term limits. Some of my colleagues wondered why, especially 
since I was one of the youngest Members elected. There was one very 
simple and direct answer.
  It is important to lead by example.
  I will lead by example, with a self-imposed limit.
  Serving in Congress should not be a lifetime job. Any Member elected 
should work for whatever change he or she deems important, and then 
move on. If you haven't changed things within 12 years in the majority, 
chances are you never will, and you should step aside to let someone 
else try.
  Voters in 22 States have approved term limits, and chances are that, 
if the other States had an initiative petition process, the voters 
there would approve term limits too.
  I urge all my colleagues, Republican, Democrat, and anyone else, to 
support term limits. The voters will demand nothing less of this and 
any future Congress.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before yielding, I just want to note for trend 
watchers, today a lot of Republicans are talking about how we must do 
what the public wants. Next week when we are dealing with the tax cut, 
which I believe public opinion polls will show is much less popular, 
look out for a change. We will be told then that it is important to 
stand up for what is right no matter what a temporary poll shows. So 
enjoy the allegiance to the short-term popular vote. It will pass with 
the weekend.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by paying respect to all 
of my colleagues. Members here are said to represent their people. We 
are sent to go home and to justify what it is we do and what we have 
done and how we have served our people.
  I regard public service as an honorable calling. I have heard talk 
about citizen legislators and lack of citizen legislators. Under our 
system, we have seen people like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Clay. 
We have seen Rayburn, we saw Michel, we have seen Newt Gingrich, we 
have seen Tom Foley, we have seen all of the other leaders, Gephardt. 
We have seen my friend Henry Hyde. No one is going to tell me these are 
not citizen legislators.
  There is a huge turnover in this place. If you look, better than 50 
percent of the Members are new. Very few remember Watergate. Virtually 
none remember World War II. We need to have people here who are able to 
understand history, some who can recall it, some who can understand 
what it is we did and why, and why it was right, and why it was wrong, 
and why we should have done it, and why we should have not.
  That is what makes this institution great, the fact that we do 
produce people who are able to go home year after year and justify to 
the people the propriety of their service, what they have done, how 
they have done it, and why, and then come back and assist us by 
providing us with a corporate memory and an understanding of what it 
is.
  I regard public service as a great calling, as an honorable calling, 
as something in which we give back to the people we serve something for 
what they give us. And we work together as their spokesman, as their 
voice, as their representative in the Congress, to do what it is that 
they would like to have done.
  Government is an honorable calling. It exists to enable the people to 
rule themselves, to keep order, to see to it that we have a just 
society, to address all of the proper responsibilities of government, 
such as the national defense, or seeing to it that we have a just 
society which sees to it that no one suffers unduly in times of 
distress or hardship, to take care of the old, to educate the young. 
These are great callings, and these are callings in which we are at the 
center.
  It cannot be said that Members will not seek this job under the 
current situation. Look and see the number. Look at the number of new 
Members who have come here. There has been a turnover. But it is 
necessary to have people who understand what it is, why it is, how this 
institution works, and why, and where the public interest lies. Those 
are the real things which are important.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the average length 
of service in the 104th Congress is 7\1/2\ years in this body, 10 years 
in the other body, well under the 12 years that we are talking about 
here in some of these amendments. Throughout history only 13\1/2\ 
percent of all House Members have served for more than 6 years. I would 
observe that in the 19th century, the total percent was only 2.6 
percent.
  It is important we recognize not only the honor of this calling, but 
we recognize the right of the citizens to choose who it is will serve 
them. That is why we have elections. We go home to talk to our people, 
to tell them what we did. I have a home in Michigan. I live there. I 
stay there. I talk to my fellow citizens. I find out what their 
concerns are. And were that not so, I can assure you, I would not still 
be serving in this institution.
  One thing that has to be observed, I oppose term limits. I think they 
are unwise and I think they rob the people of a choice. However, if we 
are to do something about term limits, they should commence 
immediately.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  [[Page H3905]] Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I would make two points, observations, if you could 
underscore them.
  One, am I correct you are opposed to term limits?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely, and I have 
made no bones about it, and I have told my people so. By the way, I was 
elected by a very large majority.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
gracious gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  First, Republicans have done exactly what we promised to do in the 
Contract With America. We have brought the term limits debate to the 
floor of the House so that the arguments can be publicly and thoroughly 
aired. That is what we promised, and that is what we are delivering.
  I believe the interest in term limits reflects people's belief that 
Congress has been out of touch, that we have not in recent years 
debated the issues that people felt were at the heart of their 
concerns, and in that I agree with them. I agree that this body has 
been out of touch, but it is not for lack of Member turnover.
  More than 50 percent of the Members have been here less than 4 years. 
What great corporation with formidable responsibilities would seek 
greater turnover than that?
  The problem has been the entrenched power structure that governs what 
this body is allowed to consider. That is the problem. The solution is 
the solution adopted by the Republican majority this term. We have 
limited the terms of committee chairmen, limited the terms of all of 
our leadership, so that we will assure that turnover in committee chair 
and in leadership positions will guarantee that indeed the agenda will 
change, that there will be no chairman that can limit the agenda to his 
interests and the interests of those who sent him to Congress.
  Limiting the terms of committee chairmen and reforming our campaign 
finance laws so that challengers have a genuine opportunity to win are 
the answer. The solution is not term limits, because that simply 
transfers power to staff. They stay longer than Members, they get to 
know the law better than Members, and they end up steering Members and 
controlling the agenda when they are not elected and do not go home.
  I do not want to transfer power to staff, but I also do not want to 
compromise the quality of the solutions that we develop here as this 
Congress. And if we limit terms, we will surely compromise quality. 
Limiting terms will not simplify the problems. The problems are complex 
because American manufacturing and agriculture now employ highly toxic 
chemicals to produce their products. That means we have to have clean 
air laws, clean water laws, and when we write those laws, we have to 
know a lot about industry, agriculture, and chemistry.
  Our security depends on understanding what kind of conflicts we will 
be a part of in 20 years, and for that reason then we need to 
understand what force structure we will need, what armaments we will 
need, and what investments in research and development we must make now 
for the security of our children. These issues take time, they take 
study, they take years of understanding, knowledge, and work.
  Our economic security depends on our success in the international 
market. Child and family security depends on getting rid of drugs.
  The issues demand an intelligent, knowledgeable, and dedicated 
Congress. Vote against term limits.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that no Member ask me to yield until I 
finish because I do not want to be interrupted.
  I want to tell you how unpleasant it is to take the well in militant 
opposition to something that is so near and dear to the hearts of so 
many of my colleagues and Members whom I revere, but I just cannot be 
an accessory to the dumbing down of democracy. And I think that is what 
this is. I might also say, parenthetically, that it is a little amusing 
to see the stickers that have been worn by so many of my colleagues. It 
says, ``term limits, yes.'' It does not say, ``term limits now.'' It 
says, ``term limits, yes.''
  I am reminded of the famous prayer of Saint Augustine who said, Dear 
God, make me pure, but not now.
  If someone told you on election day you had to vote for a particular 
person, you would wonder if you were back in the Soviet Union. What is 
the essential differences if they tell you you may not vote for this 
person? They have limited your range of choices. You have narrowed the 
circle of possibilities. You have denied a fundamental right free 
people have in a free country. If this were a trial, I would call as my 
first witnesses the Founding Fathers who directly rejected term limits.
  Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the famous case of Powell versus 
MacCormick, 1969, said, and I quote, ``a fundamental principle of our 
representative democracy is, in Hamilton's words, `that the people 
should choose whom they please to govern them.' As Madison pointed out 
at the convention,'' still quoting Justice Warren, ``this principle is 
undermined as much by limiting whom the people can select as by 
limiting the franchise itself.''
  In 1788, in New York, in debating ratifying the Constitution, Robert 
Livingston asked a haunting question: ``Shall we then drive experience 
into obscurity?'' He called that an absolute abridgment of the people's 
rights.
  George Orwell, in a review of a book by Bertrand Russell, said it has 
become the task of the intellectual to defend the obvious. I make no 
pretense at being an intellectual, but defending experience against 
ignorance is certainly obvious.
  Have you ever been in a storm at sea? I have, and I knew real terror 
until I looked up on the bridge and the old Norwegian skipper, who had 
been to sea for 45
 years, was up there sucking on his pipe. And I can tell you that was 
reassuring.

  When that dentist bends over with the drill whirring, do you not hope 
he has done that work for a few years?
  And when the neurosurgeon has shaved your head and they have made the 
pencil mark on your skull where they are going to have the incision and 
he approaches with the electric saw, ask him one question, are you a 
careerist?
  Is running a modern complex society of 250 million people and a $6 
trillion economy all that easy? To do your job, to have a smattering of 
ignorance, in Oscar Levant's phrase, you have to know something about 
the environment, health care, banking and finance and tax policy, farm 
problems, weapons systems, Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Korea, not 
to mention Nagorno-Karabakh, foreign policy, the administration of 
justice, crime and punishment, education and welfare, budgeting in the 
trillions of dollars and immigration. And I have not scratched the 
surface.
  We need our best people to deal with these issues. We in Congress 
deal with ultimate issues: life and death, war and peace, drawing the 
line between liberty and order. And do you ever really doubt that 
America will never again have a real crisis? With a revolving-door 
Congress, where will we get our Everett Dirksens, our Scoop Jackson, 
our Arthur Vandenbergs, our Hubert Humphreys, our Barry Goldwaters, our 
Sam Ervins? You do not get them out of the phone book. Where did Shimon 
Peres and Yitzak Rabin get the self-confidence to negotiate peace for 
their people with the PLO? I will tell you where: experience, bloody, 
bloody experience.
  To those of you that are overwhelmed by the notion that this is a 
very popular cause, let me remind you of what Edmund Burke told the 
electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774. He said, a Member of Parliament 
owes to his constituency his highest fidelity. But he also owes them 
his best judgment and he does not owe his conscience to anybody.
  I once told an incoming class of freshmen back when they let me speak 
to them at lunch that they have to know the issues to be prepared to 
lose 
 [[Page H3906]] their seat over or they would do real damage here. To 
me, this is such an issue.
  The unstated premise of term limits is that we are progressively 
corrupted the longer we stay around
 here. In answer to that I say, look around. You will see some of the 
finest men and women you will ever encounter in your life. The 12 
apostles had their Judas Iscariot. We have a higher ratio than that. 
And I will tell you, I will not surrender. I will not concede to the 
angry, pessimistic populism that drives this movement, because it is 
just dead wrong.

  Our negative campaigning, our mudslinging, our name calling has made 
anger the national recreation. But that is our fault, not the system's. 
America needs leaders. It needs statesmen. It needs giants, and you do 
not get them out of the phone book.
  News is always better? What in the world is conservative about that? 
Have we nothing to learn from the past, tradition, history, 
institutional memory? Do they not count?
  They have a saying in the provinces, Ignorance is salvageable, but 
stupid is forever.
  This is not conservative. It is radical distrust of democracy. It is 
cynical. It is pessimistic, devoid of the hope and the optimism that 
built this country.
  This corrosive attack on the consent of the governed stems from two 
sources. One is well meaning but misguided, and the other are those who 
really in their heart hate politics and despise politicians.
  I confess, I love politics and I love politicians. They invest the 
one commodity that can never be replaced, their time, their family 
life, their privacy, and their reputation. And for what? To make this a 
better country.
  Oh, incumbents have an advantage. I guess they do, although not 
necessarily. You have a record to defend. You have voted on hundreds of 
bills. And you get socked with them by your challenger who has nothing 
to defend, and you better be ready to explain how you voted back in 
1988 on Gramm-Rudman or something like that.
  But listen to me, it is 11:30 at night. And it is January and the 
snow is whirling outside the window. And I am in a banquet hall. I am 
at my one-millionth banquet. I am sitting there as we are honoring the 
mayor of one of my local towns, and they have not even introduced the 
commissioner of streets yet. And I am exhausted. And I look out the 
window at the snowstorm and I wonder where my opponent is.
  He does not even know he is my opponent. He is home, stroking his 
collie dog, smoking a Macanudo,
 sipping from a snifter of Courvoisier and watching an R-rated movie on 
cable. But I am at that banquet.

  Again and again, I will tell you why you have a leg up, good 
constituent service, accessibility, and availability. You ought to have 
a leg up. You have made an investment challengers never make. I will 
not apologize for that.
  The case for term limits is a rejection of professionalism in 
politics. Career politician is an epithet. Careerism, they say, places 
too much focus on getting reelected and not on the public interest. 
That is a perfect nonsequitur. You get reelected by serving the public 
interest. Professionals, my friends, will run this Government. Only 
they will not be elected, they will be the faceless, nameless, try-to-
get-them-on-the-phone, unaccountable permanent bureaucracy.
  There are two contradictory arguments which support this term-limits 
issue. One is that we are too focused on reelection, not close enough 
to the people. Then you have the George Will theory that we are too 
close to the people, too responsive, and we need a constitutional 
distance from them.
  I suggest any cause that is supported by two contradictory theories 
like this is standing on two stools which, as they separate, will give 
you an awful hernia.
  Term limits limit the field of potential candidates. What successful 
person in mid life will leave a career at 50 and try and pick up the 
pieces at 56 or 62? This job will become a sabbatical for the well-to-
do elite and bored retirees. And if you listen carefully, if this ever 
becomes law, that shuffling sound you hear is the musical chairs being 
played in every legislature in the country. So the question of 1788 
recurs. Shall we then drive experience into obscurity? Shall we 
perpetrate this absolute abridgment of the people's rights?
  Listen, last June 6, I had the honor of standing on the beaches at 
Normandy with Bob Dole, Bob Michel, Sonny Montgomery, Sam Gibbons, and 
John Dingell. I guess you would call us old bulls today. But we were 
very young when we fought in battle 50 years ago. I guess we were 
citizen soldiers and citizen sailors back then. By some perverse logic, 
you withhold from us the title of citizen legislators today.
  But I heard the mournful, piercing sound of big pipes from a British 
band, scattered among the sea of white crosses and the Stars of David, 
playing ``Amazing Grace.'' And with eyes not quite dry, I read some of 
the names on the crosses until I came to one that had no name. It just 
had a cross, stating ``Here Lies in Honored Glory a Comrade in Arms 
Known but to God.''
  Then I saw another and another like that. No name, no family, just 
heroism buried thousands of miles from home. It occurred to me what an 
unpayable debt we owe these people because they died for freedom, and a 
part of that freedom is to choose who will govern you.
  I can never vote to disparage that freedom. I pray you cannot either.
  I presume to speak for Sam Gibbons, Bob Stump, John Dingell, Sonny 
Montgomery, and yes, Bob Dole. Fifty years ago our country needed us 
and we came running. I think our country still needs us. Why do you 
want to stop us from running? Why do you want to drive experience into 
obscurity? Have you forgotten the report card we got last November?
  I have one piece of advice: Trust the people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, after that remarkable performance by our 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde], I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me say that that speech by the 
gentleman from Illinois made me feel proud to be a Member of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, we already have term limits. They are called elections. 
And every year the American people consider candidates and choose who 
they want to represent them. And the best argument against term limits 
is the 104th Congress. Fifty percent of the Congress has changed in the 
last 5 years. Term limits are an emotional response to political 
frustration. That is over. The voters spoke. We are the change, the 
104th Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, what happens if we have term limits? Staff, the 
bureaucracy, lobbyists would run the Government. Rural States will be 
hurt. How will a small State compete against the bigger States if they 
are not protected by the seniority of their Members?

                              {time}  1430

  How can New Mexico compete against New York and California when it 
comes to some basic interests?
  Mr. Chairman, I saw the ad this morning by the term limits movement. 
They talked about the bank scandal, they talked about the midnight pay 
raise. That is over. That is years ago. There have been reforms in the 
Congress. Why do we keep beating ourselves up? There has been change. 
Why do we denigrate ourselves? What is wrong with experience?
  Let us have campaign finance reform, Mr. Chairman. Let us have ethics 
reform. Let us have challengers have a better chance to defeat us, if 
that is the worry. Let us address the problems of the country. Mr. 
Chairman, let us not politicize this.
  Members heard the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], 
distinguished Members from the other side. There are going to be 40 
Members from that side voting against this.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not politicize this. Let us give it the slow 
death that this issue deserves. Term limits are wrong for this country, 
and I am proud to say that.
  Mr. Chairman, we already have term limits. They are called elections. 
Every election year, the American people consider candidates and choose 
who they want to represent them.
  [[Page H3907]] I have two letters from my constituents with me. The 
first letter is from Nicole Beers from Los Alamos, NM. She states, 
``This letter is sent with many thanks and great appreciation for the 
prompt and courteous treatment I received from you and your staff * * * 
I will certainly be pulling for you in the next elections, as will my 
family.''
  The second letter is from Bill and Phyllis Gaedke from Clovis, NM, 
who state, ``We regret that you escaped the gigantic broom that swept 
socialist liberals out of government Tuesday * * *''.
  My point, Mr. Chairman, is that both of my constituents were able to 
vote the way that they wanted to. Nicole for me and Bill and Phyllis 
against me. That is democracy. Term limits will only take away the 
rights of the American people to choose their best voice in the 
legislative process.
  It is also hard for me to believe that supporters of term limits 
believe these limits are long overdue, yet they exclude themselves from 
such limits. There is one word to describe this, Mr. Chairman, and that 
word is hypocrisy.
  If the Republican Contract With America promised that Congress should 
abide by the same rules that everyone else must follow, then the 
Republican bill on term limits breaks the contract.
                                               Los Alamos, NM,

                                                  August 16, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Richardson,
     House of Representatives, Santa Fe, NM.
       Dear Congressman Richardson: This letter is sent with many 
     thanks and great appreciation for the prompt and courteous 
     treatment I received from you and your staff. Once I 
     contacted your office, the speed with which my problem was 
     resolved was astounding. The frustration and helplessness 
     that I felt regarding the situation I was in with the 
     University of New Mexico's scholarship office is gone. 
     Instead, I received the scholarship that I worked so hard 
     for.
       Within one week of contacting your office, I was contacted 
     by someone from the scholarship office who informed me that 
     my scholarship was still intact and that I would soon be 
     receiving an award letter. This was a dramatic change from 
     the long minutes on hold and trying to schedule appointments 
     that I had previously experienced.
       Your staff was extremely cooperative and unbiased. I value 
     that tremendously. I want you to know that I have relayed my 
     experience and expressed my gratitude to just about anyone 
     who would listen. Particularly, my family has heard the 
     entire story, and everyone has agreed that having a 
     congressman that is as close to the people of New Mexico is a 
     rare and special thing.
       I will certainly be pulling for you in the next elections, 
     as will my family. Thank you again to your superb office 
     staff and also to you, Congressman Richardson.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Nicole Beers.
       P.S. Juan Wecaro is the gentleman that worked directly with 
     me.
                                                                    ____



                                                   Clovis, NM,

                                                November 11, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Richardson,
     Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Richardson: We regret that you escaped 
     the gigantic broom that swept socialist liberals out of 
     government Tuesday; however, we feel somewhat encouraged that 
     the great event will serve as a very effective wakeup call 
     that we will not tolerate business as usual in Washington, 
     DC!
       We know that you have already duly noted that you and your 
     liberal policies were rejected here in Curry County and hope 
     this fact serves as a guide to your getting into mainstream 
     America.
       You have been a very big spender; we hope now that you will 
     be able to curb your insatiable appetite for our money.
       Of course, we have been labeled obstructionist for many 
     years; now we'll just have to see if anyone else wears that 
     label.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Curry   Precinct
                        Name                           County      23   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bemis...............................................        50        60
Richardson..........................................        48        37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Sincerely,
                                          Bill and Phyllis Gaedke.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Florida for yielding time to me, to allow me to say a few words about 
an historic debate.
  Mr. Chairman, as great as the debate is that we have already heard 
here today, most recently through the eloquence of the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and Mr. Chairman, as great as the debates 
that have raged in these hallways over the ages have been, and as great 
as the debate will be that we will hear into the evening hours tonight 
on this issue, let us not forget where the greatest, where the most 
eloquent, where the most appropriate debate on this issue is and should 
be, and that is with the people.
  Let us keep in perspective, Mr. Chairman, what it is that we are 
debating and will be deciding this evening. We will not be deciding 
whether or not the American people should have term limits. All we are 
deciding, the only issue that we are deciding, is whether or not the 
people of this country shall themselves be able to make that decision.
  I do not think there is anybody here that would deny that that is 
precisely the method for making these decisions that our Founding 
Fathers had in mind. That is all we are deciding.
  Let us not take from the people the ability to decide this 
fundamental issue. Let the debate go forward from this Chamber to the 
halls of our State legislatures and in the communities all across 
America, where it ought to be. Let us not here today stifle that 
debate. It is a vigorous debate, it is a great debate. Let it continue.
  Mr. Chairman, also with regard to one of the specific proposals that 
we will be debating and voting on, and that is that proposal for a 12-
year limit that would allow States to set lower limits, let me say that 
is a recipe for disaster. That is a recipe that guarantees that the 
issue will in fact be bottled up in our courts for decades or years to 
come.
  Let us reflect back to the last time this body did decide a similar 
issue, and that is early in this century with the 17th amendment that 
provided for the direct election of Senators. Had those Members who 
voted for that, and had those States that voted to adopt that amendment 
at that time said, ``Let us have a national standard with an asterisk 
on it, and say some States can do it directly and some States can do it 
indirectly,'' is there anybody here that would disagree with the 
proposition that that would have thrown the issue into the courts and 
probably would have resulted in the rejection of the 17th amendment?
  If we have the fortitude, if we decide that this is an issue that the 
people should decide, let us give it to them and say ``Do you want a 
national standard?''
  Do we want to provide for that great process that brings us here 
today, for the people to decide that and set that standard based on the 
will of the people? Let this debate continue.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. McCrery].
  (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, we limit the terms of the President, and 
we ought to limit the terms of Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of term limits for Members of 
Congress.
  When I first arrived in Congress some 7 years ago, I had mixed 
feelings about term limits. But since arriving, I have witnessed the 
House Bank scandal, the House Restaurant scandal, and the House Post 
Office scandal. I believe all these sad events in the history of our 
legislative branch are due to the arrogance which results from human 
beings being in power for too long.
  For those who contend that term limits run counter to our democratic 
principles and unduly restrict people's rights, I would point out that 
the people of this country, in their wisdom, chose to restrict their 
right to elect a President to only two terms. The people chose to so 
restrict their rights because they rightfully recognized the danger of 
allowing the executive branch to be controlled by any one person for 
too long. The same danger exists in the legislative branch. By not 
limiting terms of Members of Congress, we expose ourselves to the 
danger of a few men or women being in power, in positions of influence, 
in our legislative branch, for too long. We expose ourselves to the 
danger of the unbridled arrogance which can result from a set of human 
beings being in power for too long. I believe in the axiom, ``Power 
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to impose on our legislative branch the same 
kind of protection against the accumulation of power and the corruption 
which results from it that we have imposed on our executive branch of 
Government.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the debate today, I 
believe once again we see that Congress just does not get it. There 
continues to be a huge disconnect between Congress and 
 [[Page H3908]] the American people, between this beltway mentality in 
Washington and the rest of the country.
  I enjoy listening to the philosophical debate about the pros and cons 
for term limits, but coming from a business background, I think it is 
also important to come back and take a look at reality.
  Let us take a look at what performance this Congress has been giving 
to the American people: huge deficits; a process which has unempowered 
the people by developing a campaign process where Congress is forced to 
raise huge amounts for campaign war chests, and other failed programs. 
We have developed a huge welfare state, a dependency on Washington 
rather than the American people.
  It is time that we move back, that we empower the American people, 
that we even the playing field. We have to recognize that the only 
change and real reform that is taking place, is taking place at the 
State level, where voters are empowered to make change.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, the debate on term limits parallels the 
debate over giving women the right to vote.
  It took Congress 32 years to catch up with the public's desire for 
women's suffrage. The first vote in Congress on a constitutional 
amendment to give women the vote took place in 1887, and it was 
defeated. It was defeated again in 1918 and once more in early 1919. It 
wasn't until later in 1919 that Congress finally approved the amendment 
and sent it to the States for ratification.
  During the three decades that Congress was opposing women's suffrage, 
however, 30 of the 48 States went ahead and gave women the right to 
vote in some degree.
  The same thing has occurred with term limits. During the last few 
years, when the Democratic leadership refused to even bring this issue 
to the floor, 22 States have passed their own congressional term limits 
laws. The term limits provision in the Contract With America and 
today's vote are signs that under our new Republican leadership 
Congress is finally catching up with the States.
  The very first bill I introduced when I came to Congress was a term 
limits bill tracking Florida's 8-year limit, and I introduced the same 
bill again this year. I will support both the Hilleary and McCollum 
amendments because they would not supersede Florida's law, which passed 
in 1992 with 77 percent of the vote. National poll numbers show about 
the same percentage of support for term limits across the country.
  Term limits will result in a Congress that is closer to the people. 
They will reduce the power of staff, since the most powerful staffers 
are always those who work for the most senior Members. And they will 
make the Congress more truly representative of America by resulting in 
a higher number of open seats, which are easier for women and 
minorities to win. Currently, 72 percent of the women and 81 percent of 
the minorities serving in Congress were elected to open seats.
  Some say that we already have term limits in the form of elections. 
Unfortunately, voters are reluctant to oust their own incumbents--even 
in 1994, 90 percent of incumbents were re-elected. At the same time, 
however the voters in eight States enacted new term limits laws.
  Others say that governing is too complicated to be left to citizen 
legislators. If our Government is too complex to be understood by its 
citizens, then we should be simplifying it, not creating a class of 
professional politicians to run it.
  Take a look at the First Congress. That group of novices managed to 
rack up some pretty significant accomplishments. The Bill of Rights, 
for example.
  I am sure there were a lot of lofty arguments put forward in this 
body 100 years ago as to why women's suffrage should not be written 
into the Constitution. But while Congress was debating, States were 
taking action.
  It is no different this time around. To date, 25 million Americans in 
22 States have voted for congressional term limits. When Members cast 
their vote today, I urge them to come down on the side of the American 
people. I urge them to vote ``yes'' on final passage of term limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the American people are angry and 
frustrated about the Congress and its lack of responsiveness to their 
needs. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class 
continues to shrink. Congress does not act and the people are angry.
  The standard of living of the average American continues to go down, 
down, down, and we continue to lose huge numbers of decent-paying jobs 
to desperate third-world countries. Congress does not act and the 
people are angry.
  The United States today is the only major industrialized Nation on 
Earth without a national health care system. Congress does not act and 
the people are angry.
  What are term limits going to do about any of this? Nothing, except 
perhaps make a bad situation worse. Mr. Chairman, the problem with 
American politics is not that we cannot force out every Member of 
Congress every 6 years. That is not the problem.
  The problem is that the U.S. Congress today is dominated by big money 
interests, and that this institution works primarily for the wealthy 
and the powerful, and not the ordinary American. That is the problem, 
and all of the term limits in the world are not going to change that 
reality.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to make the Congress responsive to 
ordinary Americans, we need campaign finance reform, not term limits. 
We need to stop millionaires from buying their own seats, and end the 
absurdity of 20 percent of the Members of Congress being millionaires 
themselves.
  We need to stop corporations from putting huge amounts of campaign 
contributions into political parties as soft money. We need to stop 
powerful interests like the insurance companies from buying the air 
waves to prevent real health care reform.
  Mr. Chairman, let us pass campaign finance reform, not term limits, 
and return power back to ordinary Americans.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of term limits. I have a great 
respect for some of those here today who have argued against them, but 
I think they have missed the point and missed the point entirely. It 
has been claimed that term limits will give strength and power to the 
congressional staff, to bureaucrats, to lobbyists who will be here in 
Washington, DC perhaps forever to come.
  I think that is entirely wrong. I think in fact the current system 
gives strength to those institutions of Washington, DC, because those 
who have been here for 20, 30, 40, and 50 years are the ones who have 
institutionalized themselves as part of that process. They have been 
unwilling to change. That is what has been seen when we have actually 
had some turnover here recently.
  Conventional wisdom is not being accepted right now. The status quo 
is not being accepted. It is because of the fact that we have new 
Members bringing that about. Term limits is the only way to assure that 
we will have this constant turnover, this constant freshness.
  Those who suggest that the only kind of experience in this Congress 
is the experience of warming a seat here for 20, 30, 40, or in the case 
of one individual who set the all-time record of 54 years, are wrong. I 
keep hearing Henry Clay's name being mentioned. Henry Clay was elected 
Speaker of the House in the early 1800's, not after he had been here 
for 20 years, in his very first term. Why? Not because of experience in 
the House of Representatives, but because of experience in life. It is 
time that we recognize that and return this institution to the people. 
I urge support for term limits.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  (Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3909]]

  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, later today the House will vote on the 
question of whether or not to assign term limits to all Members of 
Congress. This is truly an historic occasion.
  I strongly support a 12-year term limit for both Senators and 
Representatives.
  In fact, when I first ran for Congress in 1992, the need for term 
limits was item No. 1 on my 11-point platform for immediate 
congressional reform.
  I will quote from that list:
  ``No. 1. Term limits: With incumbents winning re-election 90 percent 
of the time, America's electoral process is lacking the competition 
essential for true democracy. The life tenure of Members of Congress is 
the major contributing factor to most of the problems of Congress.''
  Measures designed to effect congressional reform through term 
limitations appeared on ballots in eight States during the 1994 
election, and, in all but one State, they were passed.
  Congressional term limits would enhance the democratic nature of our 
national legislature by opening it up to a true, fair, and competitive 
election process.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of a 
committee that focuses its attention around the world.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in opposition to the term limits 
amendments. Just last week, after a historic debate, the Congress 
debated and approved the Personal Responsibility Act, sending a clear 
message: Americans must take responsibility for their own actions.
  Two weeks ago, our debate on commonsense legal reform also focused on 
the proposition that individual responsibility is the hallmark of our 
Nation.
  Is it not ironic that we are now considering stripping Americans of 
the most basic, crucial responsibility of all: the responsibility to 
remain alert, active, and informed; the responsibility to monitor 
elected officials; the responsibility to cast an intelligent vote on 
election day.
  Term limits are being proposed to solve a problem that does not 
exist. Over half the current Members of Congress began their service in 
this Chamber since 1990. During the 8 years that Ronald Reagan was 
President, the House experienced a 60-percent turnover of membership.
  Those Americans who have chosen to exercise their responsibility in 
voting have been remarkably discriminating. It is an insult to their 
intelligence, and to their patriotism, to contend term limits are the 
only possible way to turn out representatives who they feel have 
outlived their usefulness.
  Our Nation already has term limits: it's called ``voting.''
  I do not subscribe to the theory that public service is the only job 
in our society in which experience is an evil.
  Throughout my many years of service as a Member of this body, I have 
never experienced an unopposed election. Every 2 years, I have defended 
the positions I had taken, explained my voting record, and accounted to 
the people for my conduct in office. I believe that this was the way 
our Founding Fathers intended Congress to work, and I see nothing wrong 
with that proposition.
  Today, we are asked, for the first time in our Nation's history, to 
turn the clock back on 208 years of progress. After two centuries of 
expanding the electorate and the rights of our citizens, for the first 
time, an amendment is proposed that would restrict the rights of 
Americans to make a free and open choice regarding their 
representatives, and which would absolve them of the responsibility of 
remaining alert and active.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits is much more than just a bad idea. It is a 
threat to our system of Government. I urge my colleagues to strongly 
reject this amendment and to get on with the business of governing.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. First of all I would like to say that I witnessed today 
from the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] one of the greatest 
speeches I have ever heard on the floor of this House of 
Representatives. I think we are talking about the wrong thing in this 
debate on term limits.
  Let's try to put it in focus for the millions of people that are 
fortunate enough to hear this very high-level debate today. I believe 
that if you went to the American people and you said to the American 
people, ``What do you think about term limits for Members of Congress 
in the other body?'' they would say, ``We support term limits.'' But if 
you gave them the full facts and you said the amendment that we are 
considering today, a 12-year limit, and you said to them at the very 
best it is going to take 5 years for it to work its way through the 
States, so that makes 17 years and everybody that has spoken on this 
for and against has been here at least one term, which is 2 more years, 
so you are talking about term limits to get rid of all the riffraff 
here, you have got 17 years. Term limits for 17 years.
  I happen to believe that public service is the most honorable 
profession that you can practice. I am going if you will permit me to 
be personal for one minute. I had open heart surgery about 4 years ago 
and the second day out of surgery, how I will never know, they put 
through a call from North Carolina to my room, and this little old lady 
said to me, ``Bill Hefner, I just want to call you and thank you 
because your office and your staff saved me from losing my home.'' Our 
constituent service went to work for this lady, and I do not know what 
we did, but in her mind it enabled her to save her home and that was 
precious to her.
  I would hope that we would not pass an amendment that would prohibit 
any member of this House from having some precious soul in their 
district exercise their God-given right and their constitutional right 
to vote for whoever they want to if they get into the electoral process 
legally that they could express their vote on confidence in that 
person.
  I think when you go to the American people and tell them the truth, 
this is not a 12-year term limits, it is actually at best a 17-year 
term limit prohibition.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Barrett of Nebraska] 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.


                          ____________________