[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3930-H3941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1600

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, it is time to expose those who now 
piously stand as would-be term-limit martyrs. I stand as an 
unquestionable supporter of term limits, and as unalterably opposed to 
this amendment.
  Eight out of ten Americans support term limits, yet, for years the 
Democrat-controlled Congress ignored the will of the people and in 
their arrogance, refused to even debate the issue. But, when the 
American people swept a new majority into the House for the first time 
in 40 years, Democrats scrambled for a purely political position. And 
retroactivity is the rock they are hiding under. Members on the other 
side of the aisle have wrapped themselves in the banner of term-limits 
and proclaim themselves as having the only consistent position: 
applying term limits retroactively.
  But as the term-limit debate has unfolded this year, I realize that 
many of those who most vigorously support retroactive term limits are 
the very same Members who worked to block consideration of term limits 
in the past.
  Because I wanted to know what my colleagues had previously said about 
making term limits retroactive, I went through the transcript of the 
hearings held in the last Congress--the 103d Congress--on term limits. 
Mr. Chairman, I could not find any reference by my colleagues to 
applying term limits retroactively.
  Twenty-two States have passed term limits, yet not one State has made 
term limits retroactive. In fact, only one State has put a retroactive 
term limit on the ballot, Washington State, and that initiative was 
defeated. Why? Because the voters are smarter than the retroactivity 
proponents think they are. The voters know that this is a debate about 
principle, not personality. The voters are not looking to send half 
this Congress home next year automatically--through retroactive term 
limits. The voters are looking to ensure that the abuses wrought in 
past Congresses by too much seniority--ranging from the post office 
scandal to the national debt--can never happen again.
  As this debate began, I considered the principle of retroactivity 
very carefully. I looked at both pros and the cons. I looked at what 
the voters have done in 22 States already. But when I looked at who was 
pushing retroactivity the hardest, I realized it was the same people 
who tried to kill term limits in the past. Retroactivity is a stumbling 
block that has been thrown up to stop term limits. Members who oppose 
term limits have dressed themselves in the proverbial sheep's clothing 
in an attempt to suppress the will of the people.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits will restore the idea of a citizen 
legislature to this Congress. It will forever block the excesses of 
seniority that have marred this House and robbed the people of their 
faith in their Government.
  If term limits fails in the House this day, it will not be because of 
the over-three-fourths of Republicans who will vote for it. It will be 
because of those on the other side who hope to regain and hoard their 
political power and seniority, and who are now seeking to 
 [[Page H3931]] save their own political image. I urge my fellow 
Members to reject this false attempt to kill term limits. Let us listen 
to the people who sent us here and pass the term limits that they have 
passed. Vote ``no'' this substitute and vote ``yes'' on final passage 
of term limits.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been four national polls on term limits in 
the past 4 or 5 months, and all have overwhelmingly supported 
retroactivity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dingell-
Peterson amendment, and I want to make several things absolutely 
crystal clear.
  No. 1, I drafted this amendment as the Barton amendment, not knowing 
that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson] had already drafted the amendment. When I found 
out that they had already presented it to the Committee on Rules, I 
asked if I could add my name to the bill. But I had drafted the 
identical amendment that is before us, so I do not consider this to be 
necessarily the Democratic amendment.
  No. 2, if this passes, I am going to vote for it on final passage. I 
am not doing this simply as some sort of subterfuge. I am doing it 
because, as has been pointed out repeatedly on the floor this 
afternoon, overwhelming numbers of American citizens support term 
limits. They happen to think that if we pass a term-limit bill, it 
should be effective immediately, not 12 years from now, not 19 years 
from now, that it should be effective immediately.
  Now, I have the greatest respect for people like the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Bill McCollum, and the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Bob Inglis, who
 have steadfastly for many years campaigned on term limits and support 
term limits and say they are going to abide by their self-imposed limit 
whether the Congress passes anything or not. So I think they are 
totally sincere. But the bills they are supporting do not take effect 
immediately.
  There is only one bill that automatically takes effect immediately. 
That is this one and, you can perhaps make the argument, the bill of 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Van Hilleary], which gives the States 
the right to set a term-limit bill that would be effective immediately.
  If there is a problem that term limits is the real solution to, the 
problem is current Members of Congress that have already been here too 
long. This is the only vote that affects those people today. If we pass 
the Dingell-Peterson amendment, they will not apply for reelection in 
their primaries in the spring of 1996. They would not be allowed to.
  Term limits are an issue which needs to be debated on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. We should commend the Republican 
leadership for doing that. We should commend the Republicans like the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Inglis], and others who have worked so hard to bring the 
issue before the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all Republicans would vote for this 
substitute because again, it solves the problem that term limits are 
supposed to solve. It affects us in this body today. Today. And if we 
are not willing to vote for this, unless you are willing to limit 
yourself individually, like the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Inglis] is, then you are really not a supporter of term limits.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of term limits, but I am not 
going to participate in what I perceive to be a sham, in suggesting 
that after we have had term limits adopted by the people of 22 
different States and all of them have adopted them without 
retroactivity, that somehow people want to have retroactive term 
limits. In fact, the proof is in Washington State. The voters there had 
term limits offered to them with retroactivity. They rejected them, 
brought them back 2 years later without a retroactive provision, and 
they passed them.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not fool ourselves. This is an effort to provide 
cover for people who do not truly support term limits. If you do not 
believe it, look and see what they do on the final vote for final 
passage of a constitutional amendment for term limits. They are not 
going to vote for it unless it has this retroactivity in it, when, in 
point of fact, term limits will apply going forward prospectively 
anyway.
  Why not support it even if you do not get your retroactivity that you 
seem to want to have, when you can still impose term limits on yourself 
if you are a Member of Congress?
  Now, the reason why retroactive term limits are a bad idea is very 
simple: We hear those who oppose term limits all the time telling us we 
should not lose the institutional memory of this House of 
Representatives. Yet they want to turn around and in one single 
election cycle, turn over half of the membership of the House of 
Representatives, and you take those who have been here more than 12 
years, add to those who will voluntarily leave, as many Members do 
before they ever get to term limits, add to that those who are defeated 
and those who run for other offices, and you will have close to, if not 
in excess of, one-half of the Members of this House leaving at one 
time.
  Term limits should be phased in. That is why they have been made 
prospective in every single State that has enacted term limits, and 
that is why they should be made prospective only as we vote on them in 
this House of Representatives as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject what is a sham, and I 
urge everyone to look at who votes for real term limits on the final 
vote today to tell you who really supports them.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I often hear Republicans say we need 
term limits because ``It's time to clean out the barn.'' I have never 
said that in a campaign. First of all, in Chicago I am not sure what 
kind of response we would be getting because there are not a lot of 
barns. Maybe in Chicago we would say something like ``It is time to 
shovel the snow off the street.''
  When I hear someone say ``We need to clean out the barn,'' it sounds 
like something that is awfully important, not a few years down the 
road, but today, right now. And it should not wait until you have sold 
the farm and turned over the cleaning to someone else.
  So I do not understand when those who have been in Congress for 12, 
20, 25 years say they support term limits, but they plan to stick 
around Washington just a little bit longer, because these are the same 
folks that said ``We have got to clean out the barn.''
  Fine, grab a broom, clean out the barn. But what happens when it 
turns out that you are the one who is making the mess? What happens 
when you look at your own resume and realize that you have been here 
for 12 years or more and your limit is up? Well, then you better get 
out of the barn, too.
  That is what the Dingell-Peterson amendment does. It turns term 
limits from rhetorical cheap shot into real change. Retroactivity, Mr. 
Chairman, cleans out the barn now.
  Look, this amendment is not a cheap shot. It is not a threat to you 
or anyone else. It is an opportunity for everyone, an opportunity to 
prove that you are serious.
  Now, if you still want a 12-year limit and you have been here more 
than that, there is a very simple option. There is the door. It is very 
easy to get to National Airport. It takes about 10 minutes from here. 
And if you are a Member of Congress, they have even got a free parking 
lot there for you.
  You know, people say that they are opposed to retroactivity because 
the people are not for it, and as evidence for this they point to 
various polls. Well, Mr. Chairman, in a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup 
poll, respondents were asked, if there is a 12-year term limit for 
Members of Congress, do you think Members should be allowed to 
 [[Page H3932]] run for another 12 years in office, or should current 
Members who have been in Congress 12 years not run again?
  Seventy-one percent of the respondents replied that such Members 
should not be allowed to run again. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to 
put our faith in polls, we should put our faith in all the polls and be 
consistent.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding this time. She knows my general position on term 
limits and is most generous in offering that time.
  Term limits, my colleagues, were a part of the Articles of 
Confederation. During the debates leading to ratification of our 
Constitution, our Founding Fathers soundly rejected that idea.
  Today term limits as a populist issue has come about because of a 
deep-seated frustration that has boiled over because of the people's 
sense that their Congress was not responding to the public's 
priorities.
  During the last two elections, that same public reflected by their 
actions that the genius of our Founding Fathers continues to work in 
our system. They simply decided to throw many of the rascals out. Today 
over one-half of my conference is made up of people who have been here 
essentially 2 years or less.
  With that in mind, let me share with you the words of one of those 
early founders. ``The people are the best judges of who ought to 
represent them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they 
ought to elect, is to abridge their natural rights.'' He goes on to 
say, ``We all know that experience is indispensably necessary to good 
government. Shall we, then, drive experience into obscurity? I repeat, 
this is an absolute abridgement of the people's rights.'' That quote is 
from Robert Livingston during the New York debates on ratification of 
our Constitution.
  Robert Livingston, reflecting the genius of our earliest leaders, 
made two points which I wish to emphasize. First, the people's right to 
choose should not be abridged. Term limits today reflects the people's 
frustration with Members elected in other people's districts. Today in 
America people across the country essentially want their own Member to 
remain in Congress. Let us not detract from the people's right to 
choose whom they wish to serve as their Representative.
  Livingston's second point, experience is a necessary ingredient in 
our representative system. That is very fundamental to our work. 
Without it, we completely turn our Government over to the unelected 
bureaucrat.
  I do not know about you, but it took this Member a few years to 
really understand the challenges involved in making the people's 
government work. Maybe some of my colleagues were struck with inspired 
genius the day they were elected to office. I would submit, however, 
that for most of us it takes a few years to really do this very tough 
job, and even more to do it well.
  So one more time, do not leave our Government in the hands of the 
unelected. Experience is necessary, and citizens in each district have 
the good sense and, indeed, the responsibility to know there is a 
difference.
  A last point, not from Robert Livingston, but from myself. I will not 
vote for the retroactive amendment because I do not believe in term 
limits. I believe in the people's government that is the result of the 
people's choice. If applied retroactively, this proposal would 
overnight eliminate from the House the likes of Henry Hyde, Speaker 
Newt Gingrich, Richard Gephardt, Lee Hamilton, and, yes, even our own 
Bob Livingston, giants of our time without whose leadership and 
dedication the people's House would be severely diminished.
  But if you, my colleagues, happen to be one of those who is 
considering to vote for term limits, I would suggest in all sincerity 
that you ought to go down the hall and take a look in the mirror. Look 
very closely. Are you sure you are not just reacting to the fear of a 
populist firestorm and, in doing that, you have traded in your 
responsibility in this body to lead.
                              {time}  1615

  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, first let me state for the record that the 
voters of Houston have voted twice for retroactive term limits. I think 
some of the speakers should do their research so that they know that. 
Twice they voted for retroactive term limits and the city of Houston 
continues to be strong and vibrant.
  My colleagues, if we feel compelled to change the Constitution,which 
has worked effectively for over 200 years, in order to limit the 
people's right to choose their representatives, then we must do so not 
haphazardly, but fully. It is hypocritical of this House to say it is 
for term limits, and yet give members 6, 12, or 24 more years in 
Congress as House Joint Resolution 73 and the other substitutes would 
do.
  What is the point of term limits if they do not take effect 
immediately? Why should my friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, who hails from the great State of Texas, who was first 
elected when I was 11 years old, be given 12 more years? Thirty-six 
years is a career to many Americans.
  I do not want to single out my fellow Texans. Many Members on both 
sides of the aisle could be examples of the folly of House Joint 
Resolution 73. Rather, I do so out of fairness.
  I further notice that one of the advocates of House Joint Resolution 
73 was quoted as stating that retroactive term limits would violate the 
American sense of fairness and change the rules in the middle of the 
game. Let me submit to you that any term limit changes the rules in the 
middle of the game. And speaking to the freshman, how is it fair that 
we perpetuate the seniority system?
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and friend, the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, which is 
a charade.
  Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware. We should all beware of this 
amendment, given that two of its three sponsors oppose any and all term 
limits. Given their opposition, why would they offer a trojan horse 
limit? Simply put, to scuttle any chance of term limits passing in this 
House.
  The only term limit amendment debated and passed by Congress was in 
the Republican 80th Congress in 1947. This term limit became known as 
the 22d amendment. It was specifically not retroactive, and 
specifically excluded the sitting President of the United States--Harry 
S. Truman. For very logical reasons, a precedent was established when 
Congress voted against retroactive term limits in 1947.
  I oppose retroactive laws in general, as I opposed President 
Clinton's retroactive tax increase in 1993. Personally, I pledged, 
prior to my election in 1992, that I would voluntarily serve no more 
than six terms, so retroactivity will not affect my length of service.
  Of the 22 States whose voters have passed term limits, none--I 
repeat, none--have imposed them retroactively. Clearly, the voters of 
22 States have spoken on the issue of retroactivity.
  Serving in Congress should not be a lifetime career. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this charade of a substitute, and vote for 
genuine term limits.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder.]
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of retroactive term 
limits. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for 
anything up on that board regarding term limits and for final passage.
  Last year, when we were closing the term and I saw that we were not 
going to pass campaign reform, we were not going to pass lobby reform, 
I decided if we are not going to change the way we do business around 
here, then maybe term limits is a good idea. And I think that is true 
today.
  I look around on the agenda. I do not see cleaning up the way we do 
things around here with lobby reform or campaign reform. I do not even 
see it on 
 [[Page H3933]] the horizon. So let us do something different. Let us 
vote for term limits and let us make them retroactive.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, as Forrest Gump might say, the Democrats 
are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.
  But unlike Forrest Gump, the American people are not gullible enough 
to believe that the Democrats are taking this amendment and proposal 
seriously. This is how the Democratic-sponsored proposal will affect 
House Democrats: 82 of them can just resign right now. Under this 
amendment, 82 of them would no longer be here. Thirty should have left 
8 years ago at least. Even two of the proponents of this retroactive 
proposal have been in Congress longer than 12 years and thus will be 
ousted by their own proposals.
  One sponsor has served 40 years. He is like 3\1/2\ Congressmen. When 
you go out and talk to the average people, they understand the 
hypocrisy of this particular amendment since we have not had a first 
hearing on term limits in the House until November 1993. They have been 
opposed by the prior leadership.
  During the 40 years prior to that hearing there was never a single 
vote on term limits. The former speaker even sued his own constituents 
on the term limit law.
  I, like other of my freshman colleagues, have made a pledge. We will 
only serve 12 years, whether or not Congress passes an amendment. We 
are not just voting; we are actually acting. I challenge others who 
plan to vote for this amendment, as I plan to do, to act, not just 
talk. People are tired of politicians who just talk. Join with me in 
committing to resigning after 6 or 12 years, whatever you vote for, 
whether or not this passes.
  Actions speak louder than words.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, unlike many Members of Congress, I have 
actually had term limits applied to me. The San Mateo County Board of 
Supervisors in California, on which I served, was the first legislative 
body in California back in the 1970's to adopt term limits. I have seen 
for myself the value of replacing incumbents with new leadership which 
brings fresh perspectives to the body politic.
  Now we hear Members saying that they are for term limits. They were 
for them during their campaigns, but they do not insist that a term 
limits bill apply to everyone here today.
  In this Congress I introduced a bill which would allow Members of 
Congress to serve three terms of 4 years each. I personally believe 
that the terms should be expanded. Two years and campaigning all year-
round I do not think is what our Founding Fathers had in mind. But like 
many other bills, that has not reached the floor.
  My legislation would apply to all of us in this Congress and would be 
retroactive. Every single day of this 104th Congress has started with a 
Republican telling America that under the new regime Congress will be 
required to ``live under the same laws as every one else.'' I think it 
is time to make this law apply to every one in this House.
  If we are going to talk about congressional accountability, it should 
be applied to term limits as well.
  I think the American people deserve some political genuineness in 
this. I am afraid that with the retroactive issue being left out of the 
debate, that there is a great deal of political disingenuousness. So I 
rise in support of the Dingell-Peterson substitute, certainly in terms 
of the legislation that I sponsored in the 104th Congress, and I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
congressional accountability and term limits for every one here and 
retroactivity.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding time to me.
  I would rise to make two observations. First, it is very important 
for everyone to realize that every single person speaking in favor of 
this particular substitute is opposed to term limits with the 
exception, I believe, of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. 
Every other person who has spoken is against term limits.
  That makes an important point. In fact, with all due respect to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], earlier I asked him on the floor 
to yield and he was gracious enough to yield. And he told me he is 
absolutely opposed to term limits. Certainly he is opposed to term 
limits. Very important point to make.
  Folks that are proposing this amendment are adamantly opposed to term 
limits. So let us make it clear what they are trying to do.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely false. I 
stand before you a strong supporter. I know the gentlewomen from 
California, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Harman, a whole host of us here are very 
strongly in support of term limits. And so I would ask the gentleman to 
retract that.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I saw you were not 
listening when I mentioned you as the one person that I knew of at the 
time. Now I understand there are two more.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, there is a whole host of us here.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. That makes three that I know now that 
support term limits that are for this substitute. Every other one is 
opposed, am I not correct? Name another one.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. There are at least 40 Members on this side. 
If I can name them, I have got a list. It was printed in the Roll Call 
this morning. And so it is public knowledge. We are not alone, and this 
should not be a partisan issue. It is only partisan because it was 
printed as part of a contract that you all signed.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is 
a very important point to make, though, with all due respect, that one 
of the chief authors of this, and I think everyone who has spoken on 
the floor, with the few exceptions you have named by name, are 
adamantly and fundamentally opposed to term limits. So it does not take 
a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on here.
  This is designed to be a poison pill in two ways. The point is, it is 
a poison pill for the Senate and for the State legislatures. It is very 
important that we defeat this substitute.
  There is another important point to make here. That is, we are 
talking here about the Democratic alternative. I see my good friend 
from Massachusetts here, the batter on deck, to get ready to speak. I 
would point our that we needed to have more Republican votes. It is a 
very interesting situation here. Eighty percent of the American people 
favor term limits; 80 percent of the Republican conference favors term 
limits and will vote for it today.
  If the Democratic caucus would simply vote by the same margins and 
represent America, we would have term
 limits by the end of the day. But the fact is the Democratic caucus 
will not represent America at the end of the day. They will not vote by 
an 80-percent margin for term limits. We will. You will not.

  As a result, we will not have term limits. It is very important that 
we actually come forward and produce the votes. We need votes on your 
side for term limits today.
  Vote in proportion to the American people, 80 percent of you, vote 
for term limits and we will have it by the end of the day. We will be 
way over the 290 margin.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am one of a number of Democrats who rise 
in strong support of term limits and of this amendment. I have always 
believed that politics is public service, not a career, and there are 
many ways to serve. Term limits ensure a constant supply of new ideas 
and new energy. Term limits are good for both parties. They are good 
for Congress and, most of all, they are good for the American people. I 
support them prospectively 
 [[Page H3934]] and retroactively, and I did so when Democrats were in 
the majority.
  But term limits are not enough. Unless term limits are coupled with 
tough campaign finance reform, I do not believe true reform will be 
achieved.
  Today a broad bipartisan group that supports term limits is sending a 
letter to Speaker Gingrich strongly encouraging him to include campaign 
finance reform as a high priority for the second 100 days of this 
session.
  I look forward to working with Members from both sides of the aisle 
on campaign finance reform, regardless of the vote today and tomorrow.
  Let us enact true reform, term limits and campaign finance reform.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida, my 
colleague, for yielding time to me.
  This sudden interest in promoting term limits by the advocates of 
this amendment is a little misleading and, I have to admit, a bit 
intriguing.
  I think we have got to be clear on one thing, because the time is 
short and it is time for candor. Many who are supporting the Peterson-
Dingell-Frank amendment are the same Members who freely admit, at least 
to the press they freely admit, that they oppose term limits.

                              {time}  1630

  They are the same people who helped ensure that under 40 years of 
Democrat rule no debate or vote on term limits would take place. They 
are the same people who have shown little interest in responding to the 
will of the American people on this issue.
  We know almost 80 percent of Americans support term limits. They want 
us to deal with it. We also know that 22 States have adopted them. In 
every case, those term limit proposals predominantly written by 
citizens are not, repeat, not, retroactive.
  If, as the proponents of this smokescreen amendment argue, Americans 
want retroactive term limits, then why have those 22 States passed 
citizen referenda that are not retroactive? Why, in the one State that 
voted on such a proposal, was the proposal of retroactivity soundly 
defeated?
  It is because Americans are smarter than the status quo Democrats 
seem willing to believe. Americans know a true term limits supporter 
from one who is simply seeking to score political points on its way to 
the dust bin, which is what this amendment will do.
  Vote against this amendment. Its sole purpose is to provide political 
cover for those politicians who like the status quo and want term 
limits to go away.
  Of the man who wrote the first Bill of Rights in this country, George 
Mason the Fourth, a man who did not sign the Constitution, even though 
he penned that Bill of Rights for the Commonwealth of Virginia which 
was the model for our Bill of Rights:

       Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of 
     his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general 
     mass of the people, from whence he was taken.

  So said Mr. Mason. I think those are valid words, and I think he was 
right not to sign the Constitution until he had a commitment to the 
Bill of Rights, and when he finally did get the Bill of Rights in 
there, I think he would have been glad to sign it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson] has 15 
minutes remaining, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] has 10 
minutes remaining, and under the rules of the House the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson], as the proponent, has the right to close.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to 
respond to one point.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules, of which the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] was a member, allowed the Democratic side one 
substitute, and therefore we had only one opportunity to present the 
Democratic side. This is the bill that is before us today with the 
retroactivity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying how 
appropriate it is that a former prisoner of war for 7 years in Hanoi 
Hilton is the sponsor of this amendment. Unlike many Members of this 
body who claim to be promilitary but sought student deferments, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson] is promilitary and enlisted in 
our country's Armed Forces.
  I say this because he also, on the first day of this body, voted to 
put Congress under the same laws as every other member of the American 
society, as did I, and as did the majority in this body. We did not say 
we are special; we said we should live by the same laws as everyone 
else.
  Yet, some people in this room this very day will say they are better 
than a prospective Congressman because they should be allowed to serve 
their 20 years, their 18 years, their 50 years, and then and only then 
should the 12-year limit go on top of that. That is wrong. That is 
egomaniacal of the worst sort. That is the sort of thing that really 
makes America mad at Congress.
  I want to commend my good friends, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Peterson], the gentleman from
 Michigan [Mr. Dingell], both former service people serving our 
country, both of whom realized that Congress ought to live by the same 
laws as everyone else.

  I will say one last thing, Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of an 
amendment to prohibit the burning of the flag. Until it becomes law, I 
am not going to burn any flags. For those of the Members who feel so 
strongly about term limits and who have served more than 12 years, I 
encourage them not to run for reelection.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that several of us, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] and myself, many proponents 
of term limits, have committed to abide by the term limits either 
passed by our State or by the ones we have self-imposed, so there are 
many supporters of term limits who are abiding by them and will do so, 
no matter what is passed today.
  One other point I would like to make: The average time for 
ratification of a constitutional amendment during this century has been 
18 months. In fact, it only took 100 days to ratify the 26th Amendment, 
so when we talk of taking 7 years to ratify this amendment, people have 
not looked at their history. It would only take probably, at the most, 
18 months to ratify this amendment. We could get it in effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and one of the 
leading proponents on term limits, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Hilleary].
  (Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Peterson 
amendment. This bill is totally retroactive, as has already been 
mentioned. We know the voters reject retroactivity. Just as 
retroactivity in the Tax Code is a bad idea, it is also a very bad idea 
in the term limits area.
  This amendment would preempt the term limits laws passed already in 
22 States in this country. The Peterson-Dingell amendment does allow 
States to impose term limits as long as the restrictions do not exceed 
the Federal term limit in their amendment.
  This is very similar to the Hilleary amendment. However, the term 
limit imposed is clearly retroactive in this case. All the term limits 
statutes on the books in all the 22 States, whether it is 6, 8, or 12 
years, are prospective in nature. The 12-year retroactive Federal 
ceiling in Peterson-Dingell preempts the prospectivity provisions in 
all 22 of those States.
  It does not protect the 25 million voters who cast ballots in favor 
of imposing term limits on Members of Congress from their States. It 
does not protect the thousands of dedicated individuals, not 
Republicans, not Democrats, no liberals, not conservatives, but people 
who just want to do something to change this country for the better. It 
does not protect their wishes and their hard work in gathering 
signatures on those petitions in those parking lots all over this 
country to get those issues put on the ballot.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Peterson-Dingell 
amendment.
  [[Page H3935]] Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all to answer the question 
why have 22 States who have passed legislation not made it retroactive. 
Why? Because we have not acted. They do not want to put themselves in 
their own State at a disadvantage during the time that we are debating 
and attempting to deal with term limits at a national level.
  It has been suggested that this is a retroactivity amendment. It is 
not. It simply says that the terms that Members have served apply 
toward the limit of total terms they can serve.
  Mr. Chairman, it has also been suggested that only those people 
supporting this amendment are the ones who oppose term limits, and that 
this is a smokescreen and somehow a dastardly attempt to kill term 
limits. Absolutely untrue. I have supported term limits from before I 
came to this body. I am a cosponsor with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], of his legislation. He is a cosponsor of 
my legislation. I support applying term limits to everyone.
  Let us unmask the real hypocrisy going on in this debate. It is not 
people who oppose term limits, but say if you are going to apply it, at 
least be honest and apply it to everyone. It is those people who, first 
of all, voted to apply all the laws to us in Congress, stood upon a 
soap box and said ``Look what we have done: The first thing we did in 
this Congress is apply all the laws to us,'' and then they vote for 
term limits, but not to us.
  That gives a new meaning to hypocrisy, I tell the Members. I could 
not look my voters in the eye if I stood up and told them I voted to 
apply all of the laws to Congress; I voted, as you have told me to 
vote, for term limits. You support term limits, I voted for term 
limits, for everybody else that comes in the future, but I don't want 
that term limit to apply to the time that I have spent in Congress. I 
want to be able to serve another 6 or 12 or 18 years; a new meaning to 
hypocrisy.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier when we were talking 
about term limits the fallacy of what has been told to the American 
people. Some mentioned that it is a total fallacy.
  The gentleman from South Carolina said if Democrats would represent 
Americans, and I would have them know that I represent about 500,000 
Americans and have for 22 years, but let me put out the fallacy here. 
We are talking about 12 years. Even if we ratify it in 2 years, all the 
States, you are talking about 14 years, you are talking about 14 years.
  Under this amendment, I will be out, the gentleman from Michigan, 
John Dingell, will be out, all the leadership on the Democratic side 
will be out, but that is the way the cookie crumbles. If you are 
serious, if you are serious about term limits and you want to go to the 
American people and be truthful to them, and not do slogans and signing 
contracts and doing 30-second sound bites, you will say to the American 
people ``As soon as the States ratify this, we are out of here, if it 
takes 2 years, if it takes 4 years, or if it takes 6 years.'' So put 
your money where your mouth is. I am talking about a fallacy. Twelve 
years is a total fallacy and it is a sham on the American people.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson] 
and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for bringing this 
amendment to the floor, because truly this amendment says it is time to 
put up or shut up.
  If you are really for term limits, term limits, this is the ultimate 
term limit amendment. Trying to have term limits prospectively is 
saying, ``We want term limits, but don't limit my term. It is great for 
everybody in the future, but please, please, let me be all right.'' 
That is not a person who is really for term limits.
  What I say, Mr. Chairman, is I challenge my colleagues, not only on 
the other side of the aisle, but on both sides of the aisle, if you are 
really for term limits, let us make it real, let us make it 
retroactive, let us make it apply as soon as the States ratify it.
  I heard my colleagues say, ``Well, the States could probably ratify 
this in a year and a half, 18 months.'' If they do, then fine. But at 
the time they do ratify it, it should be effective. That means whoever 
has to bear the burden of that retroactivity then would have to be 
honest and would have to accept that as a way and as a voice of the 
American people.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Dingell-Peterson 
amendment, the only honest term limits amendment and legislation.
  The U.S. Constitution clearly sets forth the requirements that are 
necessary to serve in Congress. Those requirements are age, 
citizenship, and residence. The American people already have term 
limits for their Federal elected officials. Every 2 years, the Members 
of the House must stand for reelection and the American people have the 
right to select the Representatives of their choice to serve in this 
Chamber.
  My position on this issue has been very consistent. If we were 
serious about term limits, the House of Representatives would pass the 
term limits bill sponsored by my colleagues, Pete Peterson and John 
Dingell. I will vote for their bill because it is the only bill that 
would actually apply to Members who are voting on the bill because it 
would apply retroactively. All of the other bills would apply 
prospectively.
  Let us not take away any rights from American citizens. Let us 
respect the abilities of our constituents to act in their best 
interests. Let us support free and open elections. This right is a key 
component of our democratic system of Government.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not for term limits, but I am for honesty. If we 
are going to have term limits, let us have true term limits. I am not 
doing this for cover, as was suggested by some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. I am doing this for honesty.
  If we are going to impose things upon Congress that we say are for 
the rest of the American people, then let us impose this as well for 
current Members. I am for truth in term limits packaging. That is why I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor of this substitute. Let us stop 
the nonsense and arrogance. If we are going to pass a constitutional 
amendment on term limits for future Members of Congress, let us make 
sure it also covers current Members.
  The Republican term limits resolutions are nothing short of incumbent 
protection, because they only hold future Members to its standards. Let 
us not hold a future generation to its standards, let us hold our 
generation to its standards, and I am willing to abide by that.
  The Peterson-Dingell substitute is the only term limits bill that 
counts time already served by Members of Congress. Many of our 
colleagues say they support term limits to prevent Members from 
becoming arrogant and entrenched politicians. However, it is obvious 
these same colleagues believe they are immune from this temptation by 
exempting themselves from the Republican term limits legislation.
  Voting for any of the other 3 term limits legislation proposals do 
not count previous service, and that to me, Mr. Chairman, is the height 
of arrogance. Voting for the Republican term limits bill will only 
delay the effect of our Government that this legislation will oppose.
  If the bureaucrats are going to start running this country, let them 
start now. Why wait 12 years down the line, or 19 years down the line? 
If you have already served here for 20 years, how can you say you are 
for term limits 
 [[Page H3936]] when you want to serve here another 19? It is 
absolutely ridiculous.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a contract with the voters of our districts 
that can be renewed or ended every 2 years. Clearly the backers of the 
contract for America only support their contract if they are not held 
to its standards. Support the Peterson-Dingell substitute.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time 
our Republican friends have held out the view that virtue is a good 
idea, but you should not rush into it all at once. With the balanced 
budget amendment it was 2002. This one will take effect in 2009. 
Unfunded mandates, it is again for the future, while at least for 
Massachusetts, they are making worse the unfunded mandate under which 
we currently struggle.
  People have said ``You can't be for making this apply immediately 
unless you are for the concept.'' Many Members in this House who do not 
like OSHA and do not like the Fair Labor Standards Act and NLRB voted 
to apply it to Congress. Many of us feel Congress has suffered from the 
perception of seeking special treatment for itself. We are saying that 
if you are going to do something, do not single out the institution or 
the current Members of the institution from being covered by it. That 
is all this says.
                              {time}  1645

  That is all this says. But I am especially intrigued by the argument 
that this, if it passes, would kill the amendment.
  Understand what that means, because a lot of Democrats are for this 
substitute. Therefore, there must be Republicans who are prepared to 
vote for this and impose it on others but whom if they become 
immediately susceptible to it will vote against it. Because I submit 
there is no other logical basis on which this could damage the 
amendment. After all, it is not going to turn away State ratifications. 
The State legislatures will not be affected by this. This deals only 
with Congress.
  So to the extent that you argue that this hurts the process, it must 
mean that there are, as we have long suspected, some very 
unenthusiastic supporters of term limits over there, and they will vote 
for it if it will lose and they will vote for it if it will have no 
effect, but God forbid that it should actually go into effect and 
affect them.
  So, therefore, we have an admission. They tell us if this amendment 
becomes the pending one, it will not do well. Why? Because we know 
there are Democrats who will vote for only this version.
  Therefore, what the Republicans are telling us is that if this 
applies immediately, not retroactively, this does not say that Tip 
O'Neill only served 12 years and he has got to give back 30, this says 
it applies immediately, it means that there are Republicans there who 
are for it in theory but do not want to have to live with it.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my friend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. I am one of these Republicans who really believe this 
stuff. I am going to vote for your amendment even though you do not 
believe it. When I get through voting for your amendment, I am going to 
vote for the other three that come after it.
  You have had 40 years as a party to do something about career 
politics. To say that we do not care and the Republican Party is a sham 
is an absolute insult to the voters in 1994.
  I am going to vote for your amendment. Will you vote for the three 
that come after yours?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, 40 years ago I was recovering from 
my bar mitzvah so I cannot be held accountable for what happened then. 
But I will say this. The gentleman is apparently joining us. I heard 
people on his side say anybody who votes for this amendment is a 
saboteur and is trying to undermine it. I am glad the gentleman is 
going to vote with us. I just want to defend him from his fellow South 
Carolinian who was suggesting that in voting for this he is somehow 
trying to undermine it. I think he has effectively repudiated that 
unfair accusation. I welcome his vindication.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think the problem that my colleagues have is they know 
that you do not mean it and it bothers them for you to play a game. I 
think it bothers the American public. I am willing to play the game 
with you. Maybe I am not quite up to their level.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have never said that I was for term 
limits. I do believe one should listen to the people and that people in 
my district in a referendum voted against term limits, and I think they 
were right. I understand why they did that.
  But I have said this. As many of you who oppose OSHA voted to cover 
Congress under OSHA, there are two principles here. Do you have the 
term limits and if you have them, do you give a special exemption to 
sitting Members who will be the only ones hereafter who will not be 
subject to a strict 12-year limit?
  So, no, I am not for term limits, but I am also not for a double 
standard that protects sitting Members.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. It is not important what I think about term limits. It 
is important what is right and what is wrong. The substance is 
important.
  I never heard any of my colleagues on that side complaining about the 
fact that this matter was to be pushed into the future some 19 years. 
What we are talking about is truth in term limits.
  The Speaker yesterday said the United States no longer needs or 
desires a class of permanent career politicians. Neither he nor anyone 
on that side of the aisle has ever told us that what was really here 
before us in the amendment they laid before us today is a 19-year delay 
in the effective date.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting because last week my 
friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks], a Republican, sent a 
letter to all the Members of Congress asking them to come down and join 
him in a press conference and submit their resignation.
  I have heard 80 percent of the Republicans support term limits. I 
thought 80 percent of the Republicans would be at this press conference 
to submit their resignation in whatever appropriate year it was, 
whether it was 8 years, 10 years, or 12 years.
  There were only 8 Members who showed up. Eighty percent of the 
Republicans are for term limits but only 8 Members showed up to submit 
their resignation at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Record an op-ed piece by Speaker 
Gingrich that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. In the piece, 
the Speaker called on Democrats to join him in passing term limits. The 
op-ed piece accurately points out that at least 60 Democrats are needed 
to vote for term limits passage.
  Well, I say to the Speaker, I estimate there could be anywhere from 
70 to 100 Democrats who will support this amendment. What a golden 
opportunity to pass term limits today. Seventy to 100 Members.
  Let us get all of the Republicans behind this amendment and pass it 
right here because this is the amendment Democrats are willing to 
support. There is nothing wrong with putting your votes where your 
principles are. If we have to institute term limits retroactively, then 
it is worth it to get term limits passed today.
  I have heard at least 10 different Members on the other side of the 
aisle declare that Republicans cannot pass term limits on their own, 
they need the help of the Democrats. This is your opportunity. You have 
the votes, 70 to 100.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
        [[Page H3937]] [From the Washington Post, Mar. 28, 1995]

                             Turnover Time

                           (By Newt Gingrich)

       Americans should turn their TV sets to C-SPAN today to 
     witness an important debate. The citizens of the nation can 
     determine for themselves whether their elected 
     representatives trust them to take an increased role in 
     leading this country. The debate is about term limits.
       Term limits is, at heart, a statement on how our country 
     has been run over a certain period of time and how it should 
     be run in the future. Some might say that the demand for a 
     constitutional amendment for congressional term limits is, 
     like a balanced budget amendment, merely a temporary, 
     impulsive mood on the part of a public frustrated by 
     wasteful, free-spending actions of an arrogant Congress. This 
     would be an incorrect reading of the current sentiment.
       House Republicans see it differently, and that is why we 
     are as committed to bringing term limits to the House floor 
     for a meaningful debate and vote as we were on Sept. 27, when 
     we signed the Contract With America.
       House Republicans see the overwhelming public support 
     (nearly 80 percent in some polls) as more than a brief 
     feeling of disgust with government on the part of the 
     American people. Rather we understand what our citizens know 
     in their hearts: This is an America, standing on the doorstep 
     of the 21st century, which no longer needs or desires a class 
     of permanent career politicians who are there to solve each 
     and every problem.
       Admittedly, this view is a stark contrast to the history of 
     the 20th century. The ``American century'' saw a young 
     country grow to adulthood and accept leadership 
     responsibilities. The 20th century saw two world wars and a 
     Cold War that demanded an America with a strong federal 
     government standing at the ready to keep the world from 
     falling into complete totalitarian rule. Furthermore, a 
     legitimate argument could be made that between the Depression 
     and the civil rights movement, a strong federal government 
     was appropriate at the domestic level as well.
       Regardless, the American people realize that that time has 
     passed. Today, a professional political class produces 
     inertia. This, understand, is a time when technological and 
     cultural change put a premium on swift response and 
     adaptability to changing circumstance. The current state of 
     the federal government is totally unprepared for this new 
     reality. A 20th century America, almost in a perpetual 
     ``state of war,'' may well have benefited from having 
     seasoned leaders whose experience was essential for the next 
     campaign.
       But the 21st century America will benefit more from having 
     regular turnover in its elected leaders; the 21st century 
     America will gain
      insight from the influx of new ideas; the 21st century 
     America will thrive with continual waves of new leaders 
     with fresh alternatives. Upon doing their period of 
     service, these citizen-statesmen will return to their 
     private-sector lives and remain productive resources for 
     their own communities.
       House Republicans understand this vision of the new America 
     and want to bring it to reality. That is why this week, for 
     the first time ever, the House will vote on a constitutional 
     amendment to limit the terms of members of Congress. It 
     should not come as a surprise that this historic vote is 
     being brought by Republicans. By contrast, the last 
     Democratic speaker joined in a suit against his own state's 
     constituents to challenge a term limits ballot initiative 
     that had passed overwhelmingly.
       Republicans cannot by themselves executive the will of the 
     American people. A constitutional amendment requires two-
     thirds support, or 290 House votes. Thus, we will need 
     significant Democratic support. The Republican commitment to 
     seeing term limits pass is shown in the fact that two out of 
     three House Republicans have co-signed at least one term 
     limits bill. Even if every Republican (230)--including those 
     who currently might oppose it on philosophical grounds--voted 
     for term limits, we would still be 60 votes shy of passage in 
     the House. Yet, fewer than two dozen members of the 
     Democratic Caucus have signed on to any of the term limit 
     proposals so far suggested--including those sponsored by 
     Democrats. Our Democratic president has continually opposed 
     term limits even though his own home state of Arkansas 
     overwhelmingly passed a term limits initiative in 1992.
       The opposition of the president and the majority of 
     congressional Democrats is unfortunate. We hope they will 
     consider the time and reassess their position (as, in fact, 
     several Republicans have). As a new millennium approaches, 
     people pause to reflect upon their communal rights and 
     responsibilities. At the end of the 19th century, the 
     movement began for the direct election of United States 
     senators. It took 20 years, but eventually the people's will 
     was fulfilled in the 17th Amendment. A constitutional 
     limitation on congressional terms is no less significant.
       This vote says to the American people that this is their 
     country. It says to our citizens that they are entrusted with 
     greater control. The people must now work harder to run their 
     country; it's no longer ``autopilot'' votes for entrenched 
     incumbents. Term limits will stimulate voter interest and, 
     therefore, voter participation.
       House Republicans are committed. If a term limits amendment 
     does not pass this year, subsequent Republican-lead 
     Congresses will introduce a bill until one eventually passes. 
     We invite our friends on the Democratic aisle to join us in 
     ending the political careerism of the past to cast the first 
     important vote for the new realities of the 21st century. 
     Vote for term limits.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my good friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], one of the 
original leaders in the term limits movement.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the term limits cause is a throw-the-
bums-out or a clean-out-the-barn movement that some folks I have heard 
say this afternoon characterize it as.
  The term limits movement that I have been associated with the whole 
time I have been in Congress has been a movement to provide fundamental 
change in the structure of Government designed to create a different 
attitude on the part of those who serve in Congress. That is the reason 
why I support term limits. That is why I think it is important. That is 
why I think that 12 years and a permanent change is there. It is 
something we need to be careful about, we need to put it in the 
Constitution with due deliberation, and we need to have it take effect.
  Because what has happened is that since the days of our Founding 
Fathers, we have become a full-time, year-round Congress. Instead of 
having Members like they did in the old days come here and only serve 2 
months out of the year, they serve the whole year, they have to give up 
jobs, we are not allowed to have professions any longer, so on and so 
forth, no outside earning for most Members. Consequently, the attitude 
has been created of being career-oriented. That is, naturally there is 
a tendency on the part of many to want to stay here and to get 
reelected because they do not have a job to go back to back home.
  We need to break that cycle because it leads to distortions in the 
voting pattern, it leads to the results where Members will tend to try 
to protect every interest group in order to get reelected. That means 
we do not get balanced budgets and we get other bad policy decisions 
that the Founding Fathers could never envision.
  I take term limits and term limits amendments very, very seriously. I 
take it seriously as I know some of my colleagues who support this 
amendment do. Some who believe in retroactivity are very genuine term 
limits supporters. I have heard them this afternoon, I have known them 
before, and I believe that they are. There are others who support this 
amendment, though, who are indeed opposed to term limits as several of 
them have admitted on the floor this afternoon. They view this as 
simply an opportunity to get up and poke at those of us who have long 
supported it.
  They should know full well as has been stated out here many times 
before that 22 States that have adopted term limit initiatives have not 
included retroactivity. That Americans generally think there is a 
fundamental unfairness about anything that is retroactive, whether it 
is in tax laws, or term limits or whatever.
  They also should know and probably do that in the one State where 
retroactivity was proposed, in the State of Washington, it was voted 
down by a fairly sizable margin.
  I do not think retroactivity is the question here. The real question 
is going to be, though many of us like this Member oppose this 
particular version for that and another reason I will get to in a 
moment, the real question is going to be, will these Members march out 
after this vote if they do not succeed and vote for final passage, not 
necessarily for another particular version, but for whatever stands 
there at the end of the day?
  I am willing to say I will do that. I am not going to vote for every 
amendment out here today, but whatever is standing at the end of the 
day, though I have preference, I am going to vote for it.
  There is another reason that I am not going to vote for this 
particular amendment that has not been discussed today and it does not 
apply to 
 [[Page H3938]] all of my colleagues over here. We all have different 
views.
  The underlying proposal here beyond the question of retroactivity is 
not the original McCollum 12-year amendment that I have offered that is 
the base bill. It is the Hilleary proposal that would engraft into the 
Constitution a permanent opportunity for the States under a 12-year cap 
to set limits of length of time less than 12 years for House Members.
  I do not think that that is a smart thing to do. I do not agree with 
that. It would create in my judgment a permanent hodgepodge of 6, 8, 
and 12-year limits around the country, and there is nothing we are 
going to be able to do about it after that. Whereas the underlying bill 
remains silent on that issue and lets the decision of the Supreme 
Court, whatever it is in the Arkansas case, be the deciding factor. 
State initiatives would be protected if indeed the Court rules that 
currently under the Constitution they have a right to do this, but on 
the other hand if the court shortly rules that the procedures of the 
State is unconstitutional, the underlying amendment, the
 McCollum amendment would apply for uniformity throughout the Nation, 
which I think is a far better course.

  I do not agree with some also who think that 6 years are better than 
12. I think we ought to do the same balance with the Senate and the 
House.
  I am opposed to this amendment for a number of reasons, not just to 
retroactivity. I would like to also point out the idea that several 
Members have suggested that we all ought to voluntarily walk out of 
here who believe in a certain number of years at the end of that time. 
That is fine. If some Members want to do that, great. But that does not 
promote the cause of term limits and that does not necessarily serve 
the constituency well.
  Until we have a uniformity throughout this Nation and everybody is 
under a term limit and everybody understands what that is, then it does 
not really make logical sense to leave right at the time when you are 
going to get a chance to be a committee chairman or a senior member of 
the minority party on a committee and to gain the most influence around 
this place.
  I have always favored 12-year limits, I believe they should be 
engrafted into the Constitution, I think they should be permanent in 
nature. I do not believe in retroactivity, but I definitely believe 
they should have a starting point, an ending point and let's go out of 
here together.
  I have always said that when Kennedy and Gephardt and Bonior and 
Dingell are ready to walk out together voluntarily, that will be a 
great day, I will walk out with them if that would really serve this 
cause, but I know that it won't. And just like some people listening to 
me say this, I know that they are thinking, ``Aha, what's he saying?''
  The answer is, though, retroactivity is nonsense. Retroactivity is 
not a means that is justifying a ``no'' vote at the end of the day. It 
is something that a lot of us simply do not think will work, it will 
not gain the kind of votes in the end that we would like to see it 
have, and it is nonsense to support this. Twenty-two States have not 
done it.
  It really is a killer amendment, I think, in the true sense of that 
word even though I understand some people genuinely support it. I 
strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this proposal. It does not get at what 
we need to get at.
  Let's at the end of the day, though, all of us who support term 
limits, get together and vote for whatever comes out.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bono].
  Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I have been watching the dialog down here. I 
want to make a comment. Put all the term limits aside and when you 
refer to the public, I think the big issue here is that you are gaming, 
you are running a game, and that is exactly what the public hates. You 
are just shoving it right back in their face. You don't care about term 
limits.
  I just want to say, stop gaming the public. Stop playing games at the 
public expense. You are saying I don't like term limits, yet I like 
retroactive. That is absolutely a game. You are going to damage 
yourself and you will with this vote.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I just would like to urge my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment. Term limits was intended as a gradual and 
an orderly transfer of power from professional politicians to citizen 
legislators with firsthand perspective of how Federal laws affect 
ordinary people.
  This amendment would cause a sudden and chaotic shake-up of 
Government. I urge Members to vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may start by replying to 
some of the last comments. This is not a game, sir. I have been in 
Congress a little longer than the gentleman has, and my record is very 
clear. And to have someone stand and say we are gaming something at 
this time and to impugn my integrity, I take that personally.
  For the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], please, just last week 
everyone on the gentleman's sided voted time and time again to say take 
it to the States, they do it better, they know better than you. Now the 
gentleman has stood before this crowd today and said essentially he 
will not vote for this amendment because it gives the States the right 
to determine term limits. And I would only suggest that is a reversal.
  Finally, if there is any argument today, the argument is that the 
Republicans say they are for term limits, the Democrats say we are for 
honesty. We are more honesty, because today is the day when we stand 
before Members and say we will vote for term limits and we will vote 
for them for ourselves.
  Before us we see two questions that were done for two national polls. 
There have been four. But it says term limits for Members of Congress 
are established. Should the years already served by current Members 
count toward the time? Fifty-four percent said they should apply, 40 
percent said no, and 6 percent were not sure.
  In another poll, a similar question, 71 percent said yes, term limits 
should apply to sitting Members.
  Clearly retroactivity is the real defining moment for term limits.
  This provision clearly separates the sincere term limits supporters 
from the pretenders. Members who have publicly shouted the praise of 
term limits for years freeze in their tracks when confronted with the 
realization that term limits means them too.
  I would have Members focus back to the first order of business for 
the 104th Congress. We just said it was a wonderful thing, we are going 
to pass laws that apply to Congress too, except for term limits; no, 
no, that is a toughie, we do not want to do that.
  Anything short of immediate application of this constitutional 
amendment will be an affront to the people of the United States, 
because I can tell you the people of the United States believe term 
limits means now, not 19 years from now.
  Opponents cry over and over that this is a killer amendment. This is 
simply wrong. These doomsayers just do not want it to apply to them. 
Immediate application of this constitutional amendment to all sitting 
Members of Congress is exactly, as I say, what the American people want 
us to do.
  These two polls and two others that I do not have time to cite are 
clearly indicative of what America wants us to do here today.
  Another thing that people say, that this detracts from, the 
retroactivity aspect, from your ability to enact because the States 
said it was a killer amendment. That discounts the fact that a 
ratification process is required at a Federal level and not at State 
level.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is an easy vote for those who really 
believe in term limits. It is a cop-out for those who vote ``no'' 
today.
  Support for term limits: First let me make it absolutely clear, Pete 
Peterson strongly supports term limits in principle. I made my position 
clear during my first congressional campaign in 1989 and have continued 
to support that original position. Further, I introduced my own term 
limits bill in the House on January 11 this year, well before opponents 
of term limits jumped on the retroactivity bandwagon. I have not 
supported my colleague from Florida, Mr. McCollum's amendment because 
it 
 [[Page H3939]] lacked immediacy. Nevertheless, I will vote for every 
proposal offered for term limits during this debate except for Mr. 
Inglis' plan limiting terms to 6 years. That limit is unreasonable and 
counterproductive.
  Term limits moves us closer to the original image of the citizen 
legislator envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as specified in the 
Republican Contract on America.
  This act will help break the gridlock associated with national 
legislation by ensuring a greater turnover of senior Members, who are 
often able to use the perks of their seniority to tie up publicly 
popular legislation in the interest of personal gain.
  Statistics on length of service: The average length of terms for 
Members of the 104th Congress is 7.5 years. However, most people do not 
realize that high turnover rates are largely confined to junior 
Members. As an example, during the 103d Congress average length of 
service for senior Members--those serving more than 6 terms--was 21 
years.
  Let me relate to you some very somber statistics:
  During the 19th century, less than 3 percent of the Members elected 
to serve in the House served over 12 years. In the Senate, only 11 
percent served more than 12 years. In contrast, during the 20th century 
the percentage of Members serving for more than 12 years has 
skyrocketed to 27 percent in the House and 32 percent in the Senate. 
Studying the data during the post-World War II era is even more 
alarming. From 1947 to the present, 37 percent of House Members and 42 
percent of Senate Members have served longer than 12 years. A problem 
clearly exists and a correction is clearly in order.
  We are not setting a precedent when addressing term limits. The 22d 
amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, limits the terms of 
office of the President of the United States to two terms.
  Why did a Democrat craft this substitute? Simply because, as I stated 
before, term limits will ultimately lead to better representation by 
giving the people of the United States greater confidence in those who 
serve them in Congress. I believe the serious lack of confidence the 
people have in their elected officials today could one day place the 
Republic in jeopardy. We must renew the people's faith in 
representative government. It is that simple.
  Originally, term limits was not a partisan issue. Only after it 
became part of the Contract on America did it become a Republican 
litmus test. Many Democrats, including me, have been way out front on 
this issue for a long time. But now that it is clearly partisan it is 
up to my Republican friends to deliver on their promise. Many Democrats 
will vote for this substitute--each for their own reasons--the vast 
majority because they believe like me that it is in the best interests 
of the Republic. Plus they understand that this substitute represents 
the honest alternative; it states exactly what the people on the street 
have said they want in limits.
  This is the people's term-limit proposal: 12-year lifetime limit for 
House and Senate; allows State preemption up to 12 years, and 
immediacy-retroactivity; which applies immediately upon ratification.
  The 12-year limit is identical to that contained in H.R. 73. There 
should be no argument against this provision.
  I strongly support this limit on congressional service because 12 
years is the logical time to end service in the House and the Senate. 
At 6 years a Member is truly at his/her peak, leaving 6 additional 
experienced years to guide legislation and to bring thoughtful debate 
to the floor.
  There should be no fear of creating a void of experience in the 
Congress with a 12-year limit. As I alluded to earlier, the vast 
majority of Members of the House serve here for less than 8 years. In 
fact, over half of the membership of the House has turned over since 
1990 alone. Just 2 years ago 114 new Members arrived in Congress and no 
one spoke of the void created by those new Members number replaced.
  Further, not unlike a military commander taking over a new major 
command assignment or a new CEO taking over a major corporation, one 
moves into Congress and immediately must assume the vast 
responsibilities associated with that service. These are tested 
individuals who are expected to be prepared to assume whatever level of 
responsibility necessary to carry out their representatives duties. The 
only reason that younger members do not now have their capabilities 
truly tested in their first years of service is because the seniority 
system has them locked into a junior role.
  A by-product of imposing a 12-year limit to congressional service is 
the benefit ordinary communities would gain from the experience of 
former Members of Congress who have returned to the local area. 
Importantly, these individuals would help to provide a more realistic 
grasp of what can and cannot be constructively accomplished at the 
Federal level of Government. This is a very valuable factor that 
exceeds current estimation.
  The State preemption clause is designed to commemorate the work of 
the 22 States that have already passed term limits for Members of 
Congress. Under my amendment a State may limit terms of its 
congressional delegation to any year limit so long as it does not 
exceed 12 years.
  State preemption was not part of my original term limit proposal; 
however, given the fact that 22 States have already determined length 
of service for its Member of Congress it is only common sense to honor 
those expressed State wishes. Otherwise, without the State preemption, 
those of us who represent States with less than 12-year limits would 
actually be voting to extend out allowable length of service.
  Further, just last week virtually every one of my Republican 
colleagues voted repeatedly to move more responsibility for Federal 
programs to the States. The base argument is that the States can ``do 
it better''. Clearly, following that logic, my colleagues would surely 
agree that States are best qualified to determine length of service in 
the Congress for their Members.
  The retroactivity clause is unlike that contained in any other 
amendment made in order under this rule. Simply stated, once term 
limits are ratified by 38 States and become the law of the land, 
previous congressional service would be counted toward the term limit. 
Therefore, current Members of Congress who have served more than 12 
years would be prohibited from seeking reelection.
  This provision clearly separates the sincere term limit supporters 
from the pretenders. Members who have publicly shouted the praises of 
term limits for years freeze in their tracks when confronted with the 
realization that term limits means term limits for them too.
  I would have you focus back to the first order of business of the 
104th Congress. With near unanimous support we quickly passed 
legislation that said the law Congress passes must also be applicable 
to Congress itself. It doesn't require a leap of faith to understand 
that this is one of those laws we pass that should indeed apply to 
every sitting Member. Anything short of immediate application of this 
constitutional amendment will be an affront to the people of United 
States.
  Failure to make term limits immediate in their application will have 
the effect of allowing members to serve another 17 to 19 years. This 
takes into account the 5 to 7 years required for ratification by the 
States plus the additional 12 years of service authorization by the 
amendment. For a member like the Speaker of the House, that means that 
with passage of a bill without retroactivity, he can serve a total of 
36 years, 17 already served plus 7 years of ratification, plus 12 years 
in the amendment.
  Opponents will cry over and over that this is a killer amendment. 
They are simply wrong. These doomsdayers just don't want term limits to 
apply to them. Immediate application of this constitutional amendment 
to all sitting Members of Congress is exactly what the American people 
understand term limits to be all about. Many on the other side of the 
aisle cite the overwhelming public support of term limits as the reason 
we are here debating this today. Well, in the past 5 months four 
nationwide polls have been taken to test the American people's views on 
term limits and specifically on the issue of retroactivity. I cite 
these polls for your information: November 28, 1994--CBS News--51 
percent for counting previous service; 13 percent opposing 
retroactivity; 33 percent opposed to term limits altogether; December 
5, 1994--CNN/USA Today/Gallop--71 percent of those favoring term limits 
support counting previous service; 23 percent oppose retroactivity; 
December 13, 1994--Wall Street Journal--54 percent of Americans believe 
years served prior to the enactment of term limits should be counted 
toward the limit, 40 percent opposed, and January 13, 1995--Newsweek--
53 percent of Americans support retroactive term limits, 37 percent 
oppose retroactivity.
  In all, 157 current Members of Congress would be affected if the 
Peterson amendment was ratified today. For those who say that is a 
dangerous loss of experienced Congressmen at one time let me remind you 
that just last year 114 new Members entered Congress in the 103d 
Congress and nothing dangerous occurred. In fact, the Republic was 
likely strengthened.
  The detractors say that retroactivity has not been enacted in the 
States because it is a killer amendment. That discounts the difference 
between a Federal constitutional amendment and State constitutional 
amendment. In the case of a State an amendment is often effective 
virtually immediately after the vote. For Federal ratification, on 
average it takes 5 to 7 years for 38 States to complete work on the 
amendment. Even the highly popular term 
 [[Page H3940]] limit for presidents took 4 years to ratify. In fact, 
the most recent one took over 200 years. Although I know that we now 
impose a 7-year limit under which a State must complete action--it is 
clear it will take some time. That time is wholly adequate for any 
sitting Member to adjust to the reality of the law.
  Further, the Washington State experience is not as clear as one would 
suppose. First, their 1991 amendment was for 6 rather than 12 year 
limits, which would have made the entire Washington State delegation 
ineligible for re-election. In addition, there was a major debate 
brewing in the State about California and the Columbia River Basin dams 
water issue. Reapportionment was about to give California 7 new 
congressional seats, and many in Washington State feared that 
California was gaining too much political clout at the same time 
Washington would be losing most of influence at a critical period of 
decision over the use of the Columbia Basin water.
  Again, immediacy or retroactivity, whatever you call it is the very 
heart of any term-limit amendment. If you support term limits on 
principle or just flat out do not support term limits in any form--this 
is an easy vote. On the other hand if you are supporting term limits as 
a political vehicle for your own reelection, this is an extremely tough 
vote because this is truly a term limit amendment.
  If you promised your constituents term limits as part of your 
political campaign--this is their idea of true term limits.
  Yes, we will indeed lose some very effective professional members if 
this amendment passes, and perhaps its true that we will have several 
less effective members in the same process. However, this is a huge 
country and I remain confident that the shoes of those leaving Congress 
would be replaced with dedicated, competent people. Plus the country 
will not lose the services of this quality people. They will carry out 
perhaps even more important tasks as a private citizen, unencumbered by 
congressional rule or constraints.
  There was a time in my life that I thought I was indispensable to the 
U.S. Air Force. I was a highly trained fighter pilot, instructor pilot, 
with considerable combat experience. Guess what? Due to circumstances 
beyond my control I was removed from my regular duties and did not 
return for nearly 7 years. I would like to say that I was so sorely 
missed that the mission suffered, well as much as I would like to think 
I was that important, the fact is, a pilot of equal or better 
qualifications filled the void created by my departure immediately 
without the air force missing a single step. My colleagues, rest 
assured there are many highly qualified people in your district right 
now fully capable of filling your shoes.
  Won't staff take over if we impose term limits. The short answer is 
no, not anymore than they do presently. We just had a major change in 
the 104th Congress yet by and large most committees and congressional 
offices are filled with competent, professional staff who learned their 
trade right here. Staff acquire power and clout through their member 
association. With a higher turnover in Members staff will likely be 
unable to continue clout from one Congress to the next. I do not see 
staff being either responsible for the changes that are currently 
occurring in this Congress nor do I see them preventing change.
  Finally, if one truly believes in the validity of term limits rather 
than taking a political ride on the issue for reelection--that person 
must honor their position and vote for the Peterson-Dingell amendment. 
I know those on the other side of the aisle want to blame democrats if 
term limits do not pass here today. But the facts are clear: our 
amendment goes further than any other proposal, and if we get the 
support of those of you on the other side, this amendment will pass 
here today. The American people support this effort; there can be no 
excuses. This amendment is exactly what the American people think term 
limits is all about. Listen to the people, vote yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. All the time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135, 
noes 297, not voting 2, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 274]

                               AYES--135

     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hutchinson
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kim
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Minge
     Moran
     Neumann
     Ney
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stark
     Studds
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Ward
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--297

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     [[Page H3941]] Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--2

     de la Garza
     Gephardt
       

                              {time}  1721

  Mr. BARCIA, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. RUSH, 
and Mr. OWENS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. NEY and Mr. BILBRAY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.


                          ____________________