[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3941-H3965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1724
                  TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 104-82.


amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. inglis of south 
                                carolina

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute that is made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Inglish of South Carolina: Strike all after the resolving 
     clause and insert the following:
     That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years from the date of its submission to 
     the States by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. No person who has been elected for a full term 
     to the Senate two times shall be eligible for election or 
     appointment to the Senate. No person who has been elected for 
     a full term to the House of Representatives three times shall 
     be eligible for election to the House of Representatives.
       ``Section 2. No person who has served as a Senator for more 
     than three years of a term to which some other person was 
     elected shall subsequently be eligible for election to the 
     Senate more than once. No person who has served as a 
     Representative for more than one year shall subsequently be 
     eligible for election to the House of Representatives more 
     than two times.
       ``Section 3. No election or service occurring before this 
     article becomes operative shall be taken into account when 
     determining eligibility for election under this article.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Inglis] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we now come to the continuation of this historic debate 
on term limits. It is a very exciting day in America that we now have 
the opportunity to move on to real term limits and the opportunity to 
vote for term limits for the first time in the history of this country.
  Before we vote in this House on a real term limits proposal, the 
three that are about to come before us, let me make the point of what 
has happened out there in America in the States.
  Twenty-two States, now, in the United States have enacted term 
limits. Of those States, as you can see here colored on this chart, 15 
have adopted 6-year term limits. Four have adopted 8-year term limits. 
And three have adopted 12-year term limits.
  Any of those is acceptable in my mind. Twelve years would be good if 
that is the one we end up with at the end of the day. Six years might 
be a little bit better, in my opinion, but the important thing is we 
pass term limits.
  It is important to note though if we are looking at what States have 
done that they have, a majority, adopted the 6-year approach. It is 
also something to point out that when asked, the American people 
apparently preferred the 6-year version. In fact, if you ask the 
American people which one they prefer, 82 percent prefer three terms, 
and six terms are preferred by 14 percent of the American people. This, 
I think, is consistent with most polls on the subject and accurately 
reflects the view of most people that 6 years is about right. Others 
are a little bit longer.
  But now that we have gotten that out of the way and I have advocated 
at least on the 6-year bill, let me make a very important point to all 
of my colleagues here. We just had a vote on which 135 people voted for 
retroactive application of term limits. I will now expect in honesty 
and truth in legislating for every one of those 135 to vote for final 
passage, whether it is my bill or whether it is the Hilleary approach 
or whether it is the approach offered by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum]. Because I will assure you whichever one comes forward 
as the will of this House I will support. I will not insist on six. I 
think it is a little bit better. But I am happy to vote for one of the 
12-year proposals.
  So I particularly would hope that those on the Democratic side, the 
81 that just voted for a retroactive application of term limits, as 
this House works its will, that you will vote with us on final passage. 
We need your help to get 290 votes. We have an opportunity. If every 
one of those 81 come with us, we will have term limits at the end of 
the night, and I look forward to that day.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 3 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we now come to the most objectionable of 
all the term limit proposals. The Inglis substitute would limit 
Congressmen to a mere 6 years--or three terms--in office. The proposal 
would make it impossible to run this institution in an orderly and 
intelligent fashion.
  If the Inglis substitute had been law none of the leaders selected by 
the Republican Party--not Majority Leader Armey, not Speaker Gingrich, 
and indeed not a single Republican committee chair--would have been 
eligible for office, let alone to assume their new leadership roles 
this Congress.
  And if the Inglis proposal is such a good idea, why didn't the 
Republicans choose any committee chairs from among those Members 
serving in their first three terms? I think the answer is obvious--a 6-
year term limit does not make sense. It is the most radical of all the 
term limit substitutes. It would severely distort and disfigure the 
legislative process and recast our two century old Constitution so 
significantly that its authors would no longer recognize the first 
branch of Government. The jockeying for power that would occur in this 
place under a three-term cap would be unprecedented.
  The Inglis substitute would create a Congress of lame ducks and lead 
to an even greater proliferation of wealthy candidates who could afford 
to abandon their business careers for a few years. And the few Members 
who were not independently wealthy would be forced to spend most of 
their time currying favor with special interests so that they could 
further their postcongressional career opportunities.
  [[Page H3942]] The Inglis proposal would severely limit the Members' 
opportunity to garner the experience needed to master the many 
important substantive areas of Federal legislation. Issues relating to 
civil rights, intellectual property, Federal procurement, 
communications, intelligence, labor, and income tax policy--to name but 
a few--are all highly complex and sensitive. A 6-year term limit would 
significantly diminish the ability and incentives for Members to 
understand and positively influence legislation in these areas.
  The Members would have no choice but to turn to career staffers and 
bureaucrats. The result would be a massive shift of power from elected 
officials to unelected legislative and executive branch staffers and 
lobbyists.
  I urge the Members to reject this ill-considered proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the Representative of the fifth 
District of Washington in strong support of the Inglis amendment.
  In 1992 the voters in my State spoke loud and clear on term limits. 
They passed an amendment to impose 6 year term limits on the House and 
12 years on the Senate.
  The voters of Washington State were not alone. Since 1990, 22 States 
have passed term limits. Fifteen of them were for the limits of the 
Inglis amendment: 6 years and 12 years.
  The Inglis amendment not only reflects the will of my constituents 
and the American people, it returns the House of Representatives to the 
role the Founding Fathers intended: ``the peoples House.'' Six years 
provides us enough time to come to this great body, pass laws on behalf 
of our constituents and then return home to live under those laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I am personally committed to respecting the will of my 
constituents and the voters of Washington. I encourage my colleagues to 
respect their constituents and return this body to the American people 
by joining me in support of the Inglis amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there are so many reasons to be not just skeptical, but 
despairing, of this particular variation on the term limits madness, 
that it is hard to know where to start.
  Let me just pose one hypothetical that could become, that would 
become reality if this approach were to become law. The Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, the third ranking constitutional officer in 
the Republic after the President and the Vice President would be 
presumptively a Member of the House who had served all of 4 years. Had 
had 4 years to garner the kind of experience and perspective and 
understanding of this enormous country and its complex Government, to 
be able to carry out the profound responsibilities, constitutional as 
well as administrative, of this body.
  I recall growing up and listening sometimes to one of those early 
television shows, Ted Mack's American Amateur Hour, in which we would 
all sort of chuckle watching the little black-and-white screen as 
persons would come up and often make fools of themselves trying to 
perform in front of a television audience. I do not want to turn this 
body, much less the speakership of the House of Representatives, into 
some new amateur hour. Our responsibilities are far too important in 
service to this country.
  The underlying assumption that we need anything like term limits of 
course is an assumption that needs to be attacked at every turn in this 
debate, has been mentioned time and again already. When we have more 
than half of this body elected for the first time in the 1990's, please 
tell me, where is the need?
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman].
  (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEINEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of term limits.
  The Constitution fixes certain limits on the terms of Congress. 
Thomas Jefferson explained that his reason for fixing terms on 
Congressmen was so that they would return to the people and become the 
governed instead of the governors.
  He believed that this would force Congressmen to keep the public good 
in mind.
  Jefferson's underlying premise is simple--the longer a Representative 
is in the Congress and away from his constituents, the less likely he 
is to truly represent their interests.
  Our Founding Fathers envisioned Congress not as a career as it is 
now, but a brief honor. After a short stint in public service, the 
politicians were supposed to return home.
  A 6-year term limit will allow more citizens to serve in Congress, 
destroy the evils of incumbency, and keep those who serve in Congress 
closer to those who elected them. This is what the Founders sought--a 
citizen legislature.
  No matter what the outcome of this vote. I will end my service in 
Congress after 6 years--that is what is right and that is what I 
promised my constituents.
  Support the Inglis amendment and support real term limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a colleague on the Committee on the 
Judiciary with whom I have served in many capacities.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the Chairman and I thank the gentleman, my 
colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the current amendment because I am in 
favor of term limitations and propose later to vote for the 12-year 
plan. But I oppose this facet of the process because I also oppose 
legicide, because in adopting this amendment we would be killing the 
legislative branch of our government. Legicide we cannot afford, 
changing the terms we can afford. But just as the gentleman from 
Michigan has so adequately articulated, to shrink the individual 
service of Members to 6 years is to decimate the legislative process; 
it is to take the legislative branch and make it each more subservient 
to the executive branch than ever it was before. On the one hand we 
grant the line-item veto which strengthens the hand of the President, 
and then with the other hand we pull back on the already limited power 
of the legislative branch by having only 6-year terms and no time for 
individuals to build up that institutional knowledge and the 
institutional power that is necessary to make sure that the legislative 
process works.
  Now I owe it to the record and to my constituents to explain my 
personal position on this issue. When I was vacillating a few years 
ago, when this debate erupted, I said that the term limits are guided 
by the votes of the public every 2 years. But that did not satisfy my 
people.
  So I ran a questionnaire on this very same subject; 27,000 
questionnaires were returned in my district and 82 percent of those 
questionnaires said that they opposed the proposal and supported term 
limits.
  So any doubt that I had about where I would fall on this momentous 
issue was sanctified by the opinion of my constituents, 82 percent said 
they want term limitations.
  I am going to abide by their wishes and then exercise my own judgment 
in view of my previous remarks to vote against this amendment and for 
the 12-year plan that will yet come to this debate.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the American people owe a debt of gratitude to 
the 
 [[Page H3943]] gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] for his 
leadership on this issue, for spearheading the term limits movement in 
our country and for self-imposing his own term limit. Voters across 
America have already expressed their support for it through the ballot 
boxes.
  In my own State of Massachusetts, voters last year imposed a 8-year 
limit on Members of the U.S. House; 21 other States have imposed term 
limits on their Federal representatives. Organizations have mobilized 
to get term limits passed in every State in the Union. They agree with 
people across the country that the United States would be best served 
by a citizen Congress.
  Now despite the vision of our Founding Fathers, a class of 
professional politicians has developed which, to prove the point, will 
reject legislation supported by 80 percent of the American people.
  I call term limits antitrust legislation for politicians. We do not 
like monopolies in the private sector because they lead to two things: 
Higher prices and less service. When politicians gain monopoly power 
over their offices, taxes go up and service and quality go down.
  Once again the States are far ahead of Congress in reflecting the 
public sentiment, proving the argument Republicans have been making 
that States are where the will of the people is heard most clearly.
  I urge Congress today to listen to the people and support term 
limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, a veteran of this process and 
a leader in the Democratic Party.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Michigan, for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My predecessor 
who spoke, the gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania, indicated that 
he owed it to his constituents to state his position. I think that is 
fair and correct. We ought to state our position. I have consistently 
and without fail told my constituents that I opposed the limitations of 
terms. This is a bipartisan position. I was on the floor and I hope 
many of you, if you were not on the floor, heard the remarks of the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from Illinois, Henry Hyde, when he spoke. He referred to this amendment 
and to other amendments imposing restraints on the people--forget about 
the restraint on us--the restraint on the people to select from all the 
options people they wanted to come to this House, the people's house 
and to speak for them and represent them.
                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, he referred to the imposition of this restriction on 
the electorate as the dumbing-down of democracy. That was the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I think he was correct.
  Adlai Stevenson was once asked his philosophy of democracy, and his 
response was, ``Trust the people, trust their good sense, their 
decency, their fortitude, their faith. Trust them with the facts. Trust 
them with the great decisions.''
  Every year the people consider the deliberations of Congress, and 
every other year, every second year, they make a choice. They decide 
whether or not the Representative that they have sent to Washington to 
represent them has carried out the objectives that they believe are 
appropriate.
  We have term limits; that has been stated over and over. It is 2 
years. Under the Constitution we must return to the people.
  Now I am one of those who returns to my people every night because I 
live in this area, so I do not feel that I ever lose touch with my 
people. But the fact of the matter is it is appropriate that every 2 
years they can assess whether Steny Hoyer has been a Representative in 
which they have faith and trust and which they believe is carrying out 
their best interests. Do they agree with me on every issue? Of course 
not. They are, like every constituency, filled with people who believe 
that we ought to pass this bill or we ought not to pass this bill. 
Ultimately, however, they make a choice.
  Mr. Chairman, the genius of our system is that in a democracy we give 
them that choice. We do not need to protect them against themselves. 
They have made choices, and in point of fact it is a shame that the 
demagoguery that sometimes passes for debate and alleges that we have 
an institution peopled with careerists who have 25, and 35, and 45 
years is simply not true. Do we have people who have been here that 
long? Yes, we do. But the average term, as so many have said, is 7 
years in this House. Over half of the House is new since 1990.
  We have turnover, and that is, while an accelerated phenomenon, not a 
new phenomenon. It was a phenomenon that in 1992, with 11-year service, 
maybe the senior member of my delegation, the other seven elected after 
that.
  So the fact of the matter is the American public is doing its job 
well.
  Do we always agree? No, we would have, on our side, have preferred 
they voted for us this time. They did not. But let us not diminish 
their choices by this unwise policy.
  Reject term limits.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], a good friend.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in 
commending the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] for his very 
strong leadership on this issue and the fact that we have come this far 
in having an open and recorded vote on one of the most important issues 
facing the American people. I think it is a credit to Mr. Inglis' 
leadership, and I thank him for yielding this time to me.
  It has amazed me, as we hear over and over again 70 to 80 percent of 
the American people support term limits, to hear the critics of term 
limits to say that somehow term limits are going to impede the will of 
the American people and prevent them from exercising their will every 2 
years. Not at all. The fact is that it is the clear choice of the 
American people to have term limitations, and only if this Congress 
refuses to submit a term limitation amendment to the people and to the 
States for ratification have we thwarted their will, and to that extent 
we will do that.
  But I want to address one particular criticism of term limitations, 
and that is that term limits will create an environment where 
professional bureaucrats will run the Federal Government, and that is 
simply not the case. Bureaucrats enjoy the current system of 
professional politicians with a very familiar and cozy relationship 
that they build with those politicians that results in too little 
accountability and, oftentimes, too little results.
  I attended a conference, a southern legislators conference, a few 
years ago. They had a seminar on term limitations. There were a number 
of bureaucrats there, there were a number of elected officials there, 
and they asked us to hold up our hands if we were in favor of term 
limits. Out of the entire body there was one. That was myself. The fact 
is that roomful of bureaucrats felt very comfortable with a system in 
which they had a relationship built with career politicians who 
defended the status quo. It is time that we give the States and the 
people term limitations.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We 
have heard some great speeches, I think, on the floor today on both 
sides of this issue, and many of us, of course, were impressed by the 
speech of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. In it he referred to term limits as the 
dumbing-down of democracy, and I thought, since he said that, he gave 
me license to tell another little, make another little, analogy about 
what I think of these limits.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with the highest regard and respect for the maker 
of this motion, the presenter of this amendment, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] that I referenced Yogi Berra's story. Yogi 
Berra in high school did very poorly on his test, and his teacher said, 
``Don't you know anything?''
  Yogi Berra said, ``I don't even suspect anything.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is what I think is part of the problem here.
  [[Page H3944]] When I came to the Congress, as I am sure every person 
in this room can tell us, we thought we had a handle on it all. We 
thought we had developed judgment that would make us best equipped to 
answer all the problems facing our society, and indeed our freshman 
class, when it comes to the Congress each time, every 2 years, is a 
source of reinvigoration to this body. Many of us look to the freshman 
recruits and say:
  Who among them will be President of the United States?
  Who among them will have an answer to solving the problems in our 
society?
  Who will have the answer to making peace?
  Who will preserve the environment?
  Who will make a better future for our children?
  Certainly all of them will have a role, but one or so of them may 
really rise to the top, and so we look with great anticipation to that 
new class.
  But that is not to say that there is not a role in this body for many 
ranges of experience, the fresh, reinvigorating freshmen, as well as 
the seasoned senior legislators in this body, institutional Members 
from whom we can all learn, and so, whether it is dealing domestically 
or in foreign affairs, we need to have people who know politics, know 
the relationships our Government has with other countries and know how 
to solve problems in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I say with high regard for my colleagues that I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the great State of North Carolina [Mr. 
Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, 
and I commend the gentleman from the land of the palmetto for the lead 
role he has played regarding this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congress by its inaction and inaccessibility has 
invited the anxiety that surrounds the term limit issue. The best 
course is for constituents to determine the number of terms their 
Members of Congress serve. But considering the chaos that dominates our 
lives, it has not worked well, and I, therefore, support term limits 
with this thought: Let's try change even though it may be wrong.
  This reflects my frustration and the frustration of the American 
people.
  I find it intriguing, Mr. Chairman, that this issue, which was so 
evasive during decades of Democrat control, has incredulously found its 
way to this House floor for a vote under Republican leadership in less 
than 3 months.
  The 12-year proposal applicable to Senate and House in my opinion is 
the best plan before us. The 6-year House plan and the 12-year Senate 
plan is inconsistent on its face and affords me little comfort even 
though I may vote for it. I voted in favor of the retroactive proposal 
just before us, and I will vote for final passage on the bill left 
standing.
  The majority of American people, Mr. Chairman, favor term limits, and 
it is a major plank in the Contract With America. Let us enact this day 
some sort of term limit proposal.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Inglis 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have tried hard to understand the position of those 
who support a constitutional amendment to impose congressional terms 
limits. I must admit, I am somewhat mystified by the implications of 
constitutionally imposed terms limits.
  Here is a sample of slogans for terms limit supporters: stop me 
before I win again; vote for--that way someone else can serve. Vote for 
term limits, that way I won't have to retire; support term limits--I 
just can't stop running. Voters of the world unite, you have nothing to 
lose but your power.
  It's funny, we have heard a lot from the Republicans these past few 
months about the message voters sent last November. At the very least, 
Mr. Chairman, the voters said they wanted their elected representatives 
to be the people they voted for. If the voters said anything, it was 
that they want the people they voted for to serve in Congress.
  But this constitutional amendment undermines that choice. If 
politicians want politicians to serve shorter terms, they should just 
serve fewer years. Do not restrict voters ability to elect who they 
want.
  To those who support term limits, give yourself a break, the voters 
like you. Do your duty, serve them. Don't beat yourself up.
  This bill is a gimmick designed to fool people. Every term limit 
supporter in this House can personally enforce term limits. I'm afraid 
the real slogan for the term limit Members of Congress should be do as 
I say, not as I do.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] who, I might 
note, represents the fact that there is no dumbing-down in term limits, 
and who is a fine physician who has come to this House.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  I come from the Second District of Oklahoma. Oklahoma has not dumbed-
down. They have asked for term limits, they have passed term limits, 
and they know what they are doing. My support for term limits goes 
beyond my obligation to support the will of my constituents. I truly 
believe that the only way to restore the integrity to Congress is to 
renew our belief that this House should be a citizen legislature, not a 
safe haven for permanent professional politicians.
  Although I have committed to vote for any term limit measure that 
will come through this House, I strongly believe that 12 years is too 
long. Proponents of the 12-year limit and those who oppose term limits 
will argue that Congress needs Members with experience. I present to my 
colleagues that I bring a body of experience to this institution and 
that I plan on leaving here 6 yeras from now, if I am so fortunate to 
be reelected, but I think, more importantly, the experience is not 
needed within the hallowed halls of this institution, but out in the 
real world.
  As my colleagues know, we hear lots of criticism about the lack of 
bipartisanship in this Congress. Well, there is one source of 
bipartisanship. It is the arrogance of career political elitism that we 
have heard today in this House.
  I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Inglis, I support your bill, and I urge 
my comrades and constituents to do the same.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
                              {time}  1800

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, the proposal that the proponents of term 
limits, and I am an opponent of it, place before us is based on follow 
the will of the people. The majority of the people want this; 
therefore, we should do it.
  Now, let me speak to that. President Harry Truman's last words to 
this Nation were I have a deep and abiding faith in the destiny of a 
free people. So do we will. And all of us go home almost every weekend 
and listen to our people because it is from them that the great ideas 
for democracy have come and been allowed to flourish in this hall and 
in the United States Senate and become law.
  But the hard fact is, and I have not heard anyone say it yet so I 
shall say it, sometimes the American people are simply wrong, and on 
the matter of term limits they are simply incorrect. It does not mean 
they are uninformed. It does not mean they are ignorant. It is just 
that on this issue they are incorrect.
  Now, I know that the Contract With America is based on polling. The 
Republican leadership tells us that. They would pass laws based on 
polling. They would with this bill even change the basic law of the 
land based on that will-o'-the-wisp, changing public opinion.
  And it is a will-o'-the-wisp. You know the American mood changes 
immediately following every 60 Minutes show. It changes following every 
Nightline show. And you would so change the Constitution based on that 
will-o'-the-wisp. Today's popular view is quite often tomorrow's public 
embarrassment.
  In the early 1960s, the Vietnam War was outrageously popular, only to 
be an embarrassment, only to have the 
 [[Page H3945]] American people change their mind on the Vietnam War 
before that decade was out.
  Just prior to the attack on Saddam Hussein, Desert Storm, that 
military action was unpopular. The American people did not want us to 
take it. And within 1 week it was enormously popular.
  Not long ago a poll was done on the first 10 amendments, the Bill of 
Rights of the Constitution, without identifying them. The American 
people said they would get rid of half of the 10 amendments in that 
poll. Sometimes the American people are wrong.
  That is why the founders did not create an Athenian democracy because 
they knew a representative democracy was better. Why? Because there is 
a tyranny in a pure democracy and because sometimes people are wrong, 
as they are in this matter of term limits. Vote against this amendment 
and vote against the term limits proposal.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington [Mr. Metcalf], 
where apparently 1.1 million people were wrong in 1992 when they voted 
for term limits.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 6-year term 
limitation bill. I worked hard in support of Washington State's 
initiative, which we passed in 1992, which contained a 6-year term 
limit, and it was an initiative, and the public passed it.
  We have a 6-year term limit in the Second Congressional District. I 
have pledged that I will serve no more than 6 years, whether it is 
finally declared constitutional or unconstitutional. If the people 
supported it, I will obviously pledge that.
  It was said by a previous speaker that a 6-year term limit was a bad 
mistake. He said those naive new Members, or words to this effect, 
would be putty in the hands of the skilled professional lobbyists, the 
staff and the bureaucrats.
  You know, that certainly would not have been true with the freshman 
tigers we elected this year. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Talk 
to any person, talk to a person who has not even been here. Who would 
they be most suspicious of, most cautious of, most standoffish of? The 
lobbyists. Certainly the staff and the bureaucrats. They are the ones 
that would be most concerned and careful.
  It is the long-time Members who have become comfortable with those 
people. They find that they are nice people, they like them, and they 
are the ones who are unduly influenced by the lobbyists, staff, 
whatever.
  Short-term limits are a part of our national history. In some of the 
colonial legislatures before the Revolutionary War they had a rotation 
in office, an informal and some a formal term limit. There was a 3-year 
term limit in the Continental Congress for a while during the 
Revolutionary War. Rotation in office was a way of life in the early 
part of the House, and in the War between the States was the first time 
we got up to a 4-year term limit.
  We have a mandate. Congress should enact term limits for itself as it 
did for the Presidency.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to commend the last speaker, the gentleman from Washington 
State [Mr. Metcalf]. He is the first person that has gotten up and said 
I am going to invoke term limits on myself, I do not need a 
constitutional amendment, I urge and support one, but I am going to be 
my own controller of my fate.
  Now, if we could get all of the Members that are anxious to have term 
limits to support them, we will take care of this problem and maybe 
pass a constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is a time when the new 
Republican majority is attempting to pass its platform; and it is, 
therefore, not a good time to introduce a new proposal or a new concept 
into this discussion.
  I think it is a good time, however, to at least suggest a concept 
that is worthy of exploring after this process is over, and that is 
simply this: The problems that have beset this country and that have 
made it difficult for this Congress and the President to resolve our 
most fundamental problems has not been evil, long-tenured Republicans 
or evil, long-tenured Democrats. In fact, there are relatively few long 
tenured of either party.
  The problem really has been divided government, the fact that the 
budget deficits went from about an average of about $60 billion during 
the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter to about $300 billion 
beginning in 1980 is the result principally of the fact that we had 
divided government for 12 years.
  What am I talking about? Consider this. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was 
elected with a mandate for change, promising big, important, dramatic 
changes, and indeed he was elected with a working majority in the House 
and a majority in the Senate. He instituted those changes, major tax 
cuts, major defense spending increases, and within 2 years the public 
was so concerned about what they saw they voted out his working 
majority in the House, and he did not have another one the entire rest 
of the time he was President.
  In 1992, President Clinton was elected. He came into office promising 
big change. Change was the main theme of his campaign. He began to 
institute big changes, including a dramatic health care plan. Two years 
later, the public was so concerned about what they saw they voted out 
his majority, and now we are back to divided government again.
  The problem with our inability to solve major conflicts in this 
country such as how to write a budget is not due to evil people 
ensconced in the corridors of this Capitol. It is due to the fact that, 
unlike any corporation, unlike any human institution, whether it be a 
church, a company, a labor union, or anything else, we have a system 
that allows a president of one party and a board of directors of the 
other party that can go exactly the opposite direction, and in fact 
that is the way we
 have had to govern this country now for 12 of the last 14 years.

  I suggest to you that if we want to really solve this problem, once 
this debate is over, once the contract is over with, let us sit down 
and look at a way to try to engineer an election system whereby we 
discourage the possibility of divided government every few years, give 
one side or the other 4 years to try to govern this country and see if 
they can be successful with a coherent program of how to write the 
budget, coherent program of how to write all of the legislation that we 
deal with, the appropriations process and all of it.
  At the end of 4 years, if they did a good job, they will be 
reelected. If they did not, they will be voted out of here. That is the 
way to deal with the problem, I think.
  I hope that once this is over we can perhaps enter into a real 
discussion of how to answer this problem in a way that relates to the 
real causes of our inability to answer the problems and the 
difficulties that face this country rather than try to blame it on some 
mysterious, unnamed evil people somewhere in the corridors of this 
Capitol.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 8 minutes 
15 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Inglis] has 15 minutes and 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Sanford].
  While he is coming, I would point out that he, too, represents the 
best in America that proves that this is not the dumbing down of 
America, for he is a successful businessman and farmer himself.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would applaud my colleague's efforts 
because he has gone from being a voice in the wilderness to the leader 
in this national change.
  I rise in general behind the idea of term limits but very 
specifically behind the idea of a three-term limit. I do that because I 
think it most directly affects this culture of spending that we have in 
Washington.
  Some would say, well, it does not matter how long people serve as 
long as there is some sort of limit. That is the equivalent of saying 
it does not matter how long we stick somebody in 
 [[Page H3946]] jail, just as long as they go there to stay a little 
while. That does not, again, directly affect that which we need to 
change, and that is this culture of spending.
  I think that the American taxpayer is the one in jail right now, and 
the three-term limit affects this in a couple of different ways.
  One, it reflects the will of the people. Overwhelmingly, people have 
said on the basis of 82 to 14 percent, and that is a Frank Lynch poll, 
that they would rather see people serving three terms than six terms.
  Two, I think it goes back to the will of the Founding Fathers. They 
planned for a citizen legislature in which people went up for a little 
while and tried to make a difference and then went home. In fact, what 
you see is that, on average, for the first 100 years of this country's 
existence, people came to Congress and there was 50 percent turnover. 
That number has fallen down to, for the last 40 years, about 10 percent 
turnover in Congress.
  Twelve years will not get you there. Three terms would get us much, 
much closer to that citizen legislature model.
  Last, I would go back to where we started, and that is the American 
taxpayer who is now stuck in jail. The National Taxpayers Union did a 
study and what they found was that there was direct correlation between 
the length of time in office and propensity to spend other people's 
money. So 12 years will begin to get us that. It is better than no term 
limits at all. What they found was that three terms would do a much 
better job at that.
  So I would hope that we would support this measure. I think it 
represents a real jailbreak for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Urban Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I rise in opposition to this specific amendment and to 
the constitutional amendment for term limits generally.
  Mr. Chairman, you have not found me rising to say much good about the 
Contract With America, but there is one theme of the contract which I 
believe is positive: that is putting more power in the hands of the 
people.
  But this constitutional amendment directly contradicts the theme of 
empowering individual Americans. And it seeks to fix America through 
another arbitrary and empty-headed gimmick.
  One of the beauties of our democracy is that it gives power to the 
people through choice. Expanding democracy should be about expanding 
the decisions people can make--not limiting them.
  But this amendment would take away choice. It cannot be repeated too 
many times that we already have term limits. Every 2 years, the people 
can limit our terms by just saying no. And they have. Most Members of 
Congress have served only 3.5 terms. In fact, nearly half of the 
Members of the present House have been elected in the last two election 
cycles.
  The real joke here is that the proponents of term limits want term 
limits, but not for themselves. It is like an alcoholic calling for 
prohibition, but not for himself. And, is it any wonder? Of the 20 
Members who serve either in the Republican leadership or as committee 
chairmen, only two--the majority whip and the majority leader--would 
still be here today if we had 12-year House term limits.
  In fact, the average Republican leader and committee chairman has 
served 18 and a half years. One Senate term-limit advocate has been in 
the Senate for 41 years. It would be funny if it were not a truth that 
is making this debate so tragic.
  Let us protect the sanctity of democracy by maintaining one of its 
most critical ingredients, unfettered decisionmaking by voters.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a 
minute and a half to a strong supporter of term limits, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. English]
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Inglis 
amendment.
  As someone who ran as a supporter of term limits and committed myself 
to limit my own term of service, I believe this amendment would be a 
huge improvement on current law and would be a major improvement for 
this institution.

                              {time}  1815

  I believe that term limits will help circulate new blood and new 
ideas into Congress, and for that reason it has been the focus of 
enormous vilification by the political establishment, of lobbyists, of 
political careerists and members of the news media. I believe that 
congressional term limits will be a catalyst for change and a seminal 
reform which will return this institution back to a citizen 
legislature, the way the founders conceived it.
  I have heard many speeches to day by Members of this body, whom I 
regard very highly, that he will be losing enormous experience by 
instituting term limits. But I would argue to them that the experience 
that this institution needs is not of this institution, it is from the 
professions, it is from the business community, it is from the core of 
our neighborhoods and our communities. There are experiences that we 
need here that are underrepresented that in my view would be brought in 
by term limits. This institution was established to contain citizens 
from all walks of life serving their country. In my view, term limits 
will make congress a more diverse institution that deliberates issues, 
not merely brokers of power.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
recognizing me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think term limits is a foolish idea, and I think this 
is a particularly foolish idea. I was privileged to be elected to this 
body in October of 1989. My very first meeting in the House Committee 
on Armed Services also happened to be Colin Powell's very first meeting 
before that committee as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He had 
over 30 years to learn his job, yet he makes recommendations that only 
the House Committee on Armed Services and then this body and the U.S. 
Senate can vote on, because the Constitution gives us the authority to 
declare war. The Constitution says we shall provide for an Army and for 
a Navy.
  I would think the proponents of this measure could not stand before 
this body right now and tell us what a D-5 is or Mark 48, or why we 
need a Seawolf submarine or the Centurion submarine.
  The bottom line is the House Committee on Armed Services makes 275 
billion dollars' worth of decisions every year. These are decisions 
that affect your lives. This body can vote to annihilate the world. 
These decisions should not be made lightly, and they should not be made 
by people who do not know what they are talking about. And if it took 
Colin Powell, who is a brilliant man, 30 years to learn his job, then I 
would say that people in this body need at least 12 to learn theirs.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a 
minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this 
opportunity to thank the gentleman from Greenville, South Carolina, the 
distinguished Mr. Inglis, for his leadership with this important 
reform. The gentleman's bill which years ago would have gone unnoticed, 
now it is the focal point of the public's attention tonight.
  Now, many Congresses of the past would have been perceived as being 
out of touch or spent too much or may have been perceived as being 
lifetime term wishers. Now we have the 104th Congress, 435 strong, a 
different Congress, one that has proven its accountability, first with 
the adoption of the Congressional Accountability Act, the Shays Act; 
the three-fifths rule to prevent tax increases unless there are 60 
percent to vote for it. We have cut house committee staff by one-third, 
a line-item veto to cut out wasteful spending, no proxy voting in 
committee, legal reform and regulatory reform. That is what kind 
Congress this 
 [[Page H3947]] 104th Congress is. Pending reform legislation includes 
franking reform, campaign reform, gift ban reform, and pension reform.
  But consistent with this excellent record of accountability, 
accessibility, and general reform, would be the adoption of term 
limits, like the Inglis bill.
  I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, as you know, our U.S. Constitution 
permits amendments, and this effort of many of us here is not 
approached lightly. It will take a great deal of work. But the first 
step is tonight by passing this in the House before we go to the Senate 
and the States. Eighty percent of the public favors and 22 States have 
overwhelmingly adopted term limits legislation. The American people are 
right. This body is the people's House and we should reflect their will 
by voting for the Inglis bill tonight.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, 70 percent of the people in the State of 
Michigan voted for term limits which called for 6 years in the House 
and 12 years in the Senate, and I will too. I applaud the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] for bringing this effort to the floor 
of the House and letting us all have the opportunity to vote on real 
term limits, the way the American people have wanted, the term limits 
that American people wanted and voted for.
  Term limits does not exclude people or prohibit people from running 
for office. You can run for the State house and serve for 6 years, you 
can run for the State senate, you can run for Governor. You can run for 
the U.S. House of Representatives, spend 6 years, you can run for the 
U.S. Senate, spend 12 years, and you can even run for President. You 
can spend your whole life running for political office and serving in 
politifcal office if that is what you want.
  But there is one major distinction, and that is that you have to 
appeal to a larger group of constituents each time you run, and I think 
that is the true measure of your effectiveness as a public servant. For 
those Members who are so full of themselves that they think that they 
are the only ones that can do this job, I have news for them. There are 
many good Americans who can and have and will step into their shoes and 
do an excellent job.
  It is time to give America a citizens' legislature that will pass 
laws and then go home and live under those laws. We are public 
servants, and I support what the public wants.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we just heard from 
somebody who represents some of the 2.3 million people in Michigan that 
apparently made the wrong decision on term limits, according to a 
previous speaker.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan], who represents some of the 6.5 million 
people in California who voted for term limits.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I put in my first term limits bill in my 
freshman year in 1977-78. I put in a 12-year House and 12-year Senate 
term limit bill every Congress over the past almost two decades, and 
now I have come to the position with the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Inglis] that 6 years in the House and 12 in the Senate is the way 
to go.
  There have been many good speeches today. The best was on the 
opposite side of my position from one of my dearest friends in the 
House, Henry Hyde, the supreme protector of innocent human life in the 
mother's womb in this Chamber or the other body. But I have been 
telling the gentleman for 18 years that his destiny was to be the 
Governor of Illinois for 8 years after he served 12 here. He would be 
serving in the Senate today and probably be the front-runner for the 
Presidency of the United States of America if he had been pushed out of 
this House with his best years ahead of him. And he has still got a lot 
of great years here.
  But, Mr. Chairman, 82 percent of the American people want term 
limits. It has passed almost after half of our States, and about eight 
States have come down from 12, 8 or 10 to 6. Forty-two people in this 
Chamber did not even have an opponent in the last election. Ninety-one 
percent of incumbents in both the Senate and House who wanted their 
seat got it back.
  Mr. Chairman, it simply comes down to this: The strength of this 
House will be in new blood, old blood, young blood, Hispanic blood, 
conservative, black African-American blood, more ideas in this Chamber. 
That will come through term limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what we are doing 
today unravels the balance of power that the Founding Fathers 
established when they wrote the Constitution of this country. And my 
sense has been for some time that if this generation of politicians and 
citizens changed the Constitution, we would not necessarily improve it. 
And the case in point to here is clear. We only need to look to our 
southern border to see what happens when you have a weak Congress and a 
strong Presidency. Mexico has a Congress with a term limit. One term 
and you are out of there. They have been incapable of reviewing the 
actions of the executive.
  When you add the line-item veto in a Congress that is here for less 
time than it takes to become expert in almost any of the complex 
matters we deal with today, a President, misguided or mistaken, would 
have no review from an institution where the most senior member of a 
committee, where the Speaker of the House, had 6 years of experience. 
It is not simply in the matters of defense or national security, but in 
every issue that comes before a democracy. There needs to be some 
balance, and our Founding Fathers recognized that.
  The people have the ability to institute term limits. I have just 
come off a close race. The people make those choices every 2 years, and 
we do not need a group of outside or inside experts limiting the 
options of the American people to make sure there is a Congress that is 
as strong as they want it to be to protect their rights and interests.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a 
minute and a half to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], who was 
one of the strong supporters of term limits legislation there which was 
passed in 1992 by 74 percent.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I have to commend the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Inglis] for putting together a bill that does not violate 
the vote of the Arizona voters. I appreciate that.
  Let me tell you one compelling reason, one big large fat reason why 
we should vote for term limits. It is the number 5 trillion, because 
this Congress, over the last few decades, has plunged this country $5 
trillion in debt. Maybe, just maybe, if we know we are going to be here 
for a time certain, 6 years, we will have some guts and make the proper 
decisions to make the cuts where they need to be cut. Fifteen States 
have passed term limit laws that are limiting the House Members to 6 
years, and 82 percent of the term limit supporters out there support 6 
years.
  I personally support the toughest possible amendment in keeping with 
the will of the people in Arizona who sent me here, and that is why I 
cosponsored the Inglis amendment. A limit of three terms for House 
Members will restore this body to a citizen legislature, because it 
will mean an average turnover approaching 50 percent. Now, if we limit 
it to just six terms, the average turnover is only going to be about 20 
percent. Right now it is 16. So we are only going to pick up a net of 4 
percent.
  The Founding Fathers never intended for us to become professional 
politicians. They intended for Members of Congress to serve for a 
limited time and then go back to their farms at that time and work 
under the laws that they passed. We will get better laws out of this 
body. Let us abide by the will of the American people. Let us support 
the 6-year Inglis amendment.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, what I want to do is stand here today and 
say that what we need to do in our Nation 
 [[Page H3948]] and in this Congress is to have the Nation speak 
through the various States. This legislative process is only a start. 
We need to pass a term limits amendment, and we ought to send it to the 
various States and have them make their expressions.
  My State of Arkansas, we have 6 years for the House and then 12 years 
for the Senate. That is fine with me. That is my direction and I am 
going to vote for this bill, and I am going to be a supporter of it as 
I have always been. It is not because I want to be reelected, it is not 
because some people have come to me and said if you do not do this, 
something is going to happen. It is because it is right. We need to 
restrict it.
  There are times for different measures, and the time has come for 
term limits. I am for it, I am going to vote for this bill. I am also 
going to vote for all the other bills so that we can eventually get a 
bill passed, an amendment passed, that will go to the States.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a 
minute and a half to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], who 
represents some of the 1 million people who voted for term limits in 
1992.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The people of Arizona have embraced term limits. They have done so 
with full knowledge. They are intelligent, and they can make their own 
decisions.
  I listened to impassioned speeches on this floor today about how the 
Founding Fathers would not have tolerated it. I heard quotes read from 
the Founding Fathers' papers. But the Founding Fathers wrote into our 
Constitution the ability to change the Constitution, and it is 
important to harken back to the fact that when the Founding Fathers 
wrote that document, they had no idea that the Congress would devolve 
into what it is today, that it would sit 50 out of 52 weeks of the year 
here, that it would not be a citizen legislature, made up of people who 
go home and work in their districts and then come back here, citizens 
who write laws part of the time and live under those laws the other 
part of the time.
  I am prohibited by the ethics code of this body from continuing to 
engage in my livelihood. I am a full-time Congressman.
  If we want to return to a citizen legislature, then it is time to 
recognize that we have got to enact term limits. The arrogance of 
saying those who are here are the only ones who have the wisdom to 
govern this Nation is dead wrong.
  It is time to recognize the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in 
allowing us to amend the Constitution and to return to a concept they 
embraced, which was that citizens write laws for America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just observe that we are marching our 
own institution into oblivion. I am trying to search for the reasons 
why. What would lead us to come to such a sorry conclusion that we need 
to regulate by Constitution our own terms?
  Oh, not for us exactly, after it succeeds through the ratification 
process. My hat goes off to those three Members that I have heard that 
said they are going to impose constitutional limitations on themselves 
that they would put into the Constitution. Those are my kind of guys.
  If we had a whole Congress like this, everybody that wants to impose 
limitations should impose them on themselves. And if Members did that, 
we would probably be cured of the problem that we complain of.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and oppose 
term limits as they are being proposed here this evening.
  I think that we keep hearing about these polls and how people want to 
have term limits. In my district in Pennsylvania, over the last 16 
years the voters have decided to replace two incumbents, and they 
realized that there are limits already in place. Every 2 years they get 
a chance to vote. And in fact, in some 85 weeks from now they will have 
a chance to vote on all of us and whether they want to see us return to 
the Congress.
  It is of interest that when you look at the Republican chairs of 
committees and all of their leadership, they are in their sixth term or 
better. So, therefore, for all of the 12-year advocates or less, they 
should not be returning here to the Congress. They should, as the 
ranking member has said, if they want to go, they should go. And for 
all of those who support this notion, they should look at their votes 
back in the Republican conference, in which they voted to elect all 
these people chairs and Speaker Gingrich to the Speaker's chair after 
he served 17 years.
  So the point is that after 6 years you somehow do not have the 
ability to represent the legitimate interests of your constituents, 
those people who are prepared to adopt that logic need to act on it and 
follow their wisdom to its more interesting and more ironic collusion, 
which is that they would have to leave the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Windsor, CA [Mr. Riggs], who represents some of the 6.5 
million people in California who voted for term limits.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I thank him for his very strong leadership on this particular 
issue.
  My colleagues, if things work so well at the present, how did we get 
a $5 trillion debt. We all know that Members of Congress get reelected, 
election in election out, by saying yes. And it is much easier to say 
yes than it is to say no.
  We also know that the trends indicate that the longer someone serves 
in this body, the more likely they are to become a big spender.
  Second, the longer they stay here in this body, the more dependent 
they become on special interest contributions to finance their 
reelection campaigns.
  So really term limits should be known as the empowerment act for 
Members of Congress. It will clearly help the Members of this body bite 
the bullet and make the very difficult decisions, the budgeting 
decisions that have to be made in the interest of this country.
  I for one intend to respect and honor the will of California voters 
who voted loud and clear in 1992 to limit the terms of Members of the 
California congressional delegation to three 2-year terms in the House, 
two 6-year terms in the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. 
Elective office should be short-term public service and not a career.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Inglis amendment.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we close this debate on this 6-year version of term 
limits, I think it is important not to stress the 6 years or the number 
of years but rather go back to the foundational principle here of why 
we need term limits.
  Once again, that reason is the permanent Congress that we have got in 
the United States at this point. For all the change we are talking 
about, we have heard a lot of speakers refer to the fact that we have 
got 50 percent of the body is new in the last two cycles, all of that 
may be true. But the critical thing is, who came back that wanted to 
come back? What is the rate of reelection among those who wanted to 
come back. Do not look at open seats, because we know people die or 
retire or move on for whatever reason.
  But of those who wanted to come back in 1994, with all of the change 
we got, 90 percent of us were reelected. That is a higher rate of 
reelection than the rate of reelection that used to obtain in the 
Soviet Union, when the Politburo ran the Soviet Union.
  It is very important that we limit terms so that we can get a 
different kind of person here. And yes, a person without that 
experience that so many Members have talked about, with, frankly, such 
arrogance, to assume that we have such experience to run these huge 
programs, that experience has landed us $4.8 trillion in debt.
  It is time for a different kind of experience in this body, the 
experience of ordinary people who would come here and work for a 
limited period of time on their specific agenda and then go home to 
live under the laws they created.
  [[Page H3949]] I urge Members support for this substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 316, not voting 4, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 275]

                               AYES--114

     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Calvert
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jones
     Kim
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Packard
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Vucanovich
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Zimmer

                               NOES--316

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--4

     de la Garza
     Gephardt
     Pomeroy
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1857

  Mr. JONES and Mr. MINGE 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. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 104-82.
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. hilleary

  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Hilleary: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert 
     the following:
       That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid 
     to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years from the date of its submission to 
     the States by the Congress:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. No person who has been elected to the Senate 
     two times shall be eligible for election or appointment to 
     the Senate. No person who has been elected to the House of 
     Representatives six times shall be eligible for election to 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``Section 2. Election as a Senator or Representative before 
     this Article is ratified shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of section 1, except that any State limitation on 
     service for Members of Congress from that State, whether 
     enacted before, on, or after the date of the ratification of 
     this Article shall be valid, if such limitation does not 
     exceed the limitation set forth in section 1.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Hilleary] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized in opposition for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight I am offering an amendment to protect the 
rights of individual States to impose term limit restrictions.
  First, my amendment sets a national term limit of 12 years in the 
House and 12 years in the Senate. These are lifetime limits.
  Second, our proposal allows States to set limits less than 12 years 
if they so choose.
  It does not preempt any of the term limit proposals currently passed 
by the States. Do not confuse this with retroactivity. The Federal term 
limit provision clock starts when the amendment is ratified. For States 
that currently have State-imposed term limits, they continue as 
enacted. This legislation does not reach back to count any service 
prior to what is included in the State term limit law and it does not 
preempt any State term limits by resetting the clocks back to zero. Our 
legislation leaves the State-passed term limit laws alone and totally 
enforceable.
  Although term limits is a new issue being considered by the House of 
Representatives, the citizens of 22 States around this country have 
already passed term limits in their States.
  Tonight we have the opportunity either to protect the hard work of 
those people or turn our backs on them and let 9 justices in black 
robes across the street over here decide the fate of their work.
  [[Page H3950]] My amendment has the support of grassroots 
organizations which have fought the hardest in support of term limits. 
These groups have said that my amendment is the best one to protect 
term limits. It includes: United We Stand America; the Heritage 
Foundation; National Taxpayers Union; Citizens Against Government 
Waste; America Conservative Union, and the Christian Coalition.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Hilleary amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment calls for a 12-year 
national term limit but at the same time allows the States to adopt 
shorter term limits and then apply them retroactively.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a 12-year term limit that allows each 
State in the Union to adopt a shorter than 12-year term limit if it so 
chooses. Do you have any idea what kind of chaos we are suggesting 
under a term limitation of this nature?
  It is the most undemocratic and unconstitutional choice of term 
limits that we could possible make. The Supreme Court will shortly 
decide the constitutional question of whether the States are prohibited 
from determining qualifications for Members of Congress, as I believe 
they are, but Congress should not adopt a proposal as patently 
undemocratic and unfair as this. This takes the cake.
  Voters in some term-limits States will be denied the right to elect 
experienced and effective legislators but those limits may not apply in 
other States.
  Do you realize what that would mean in terms of seniority and 
chairmanships across this Congress if some States would have shorter 
term limits than other States? I think it would become a nightmare that 
we would not want to contemplate.
  Some current Members, then, would gain seniority and others would be 
unable to. Lack of uniformity means unequal rights.
  The present Speaker of the House has said that 6 years was not enough 
time for him to understand what is needed to be an effective Member of 
this body. But this proposal would allow the States to adopt a 6-year 
limit, or maybe even a 2-term limit, or maybe, as in Mexico, a 1-term 
limit. There is no prescription, no prohibition from each State 
adopting whatever term limit they might choose.
  Who will be elected to Congress if people who want to devote their 
careers to public service are discouraged from seeking office?
  Remember our Judiciary colleague Don Edwards of California who said 
it best:

       Term limits would establish a Congress of lame ducks, rich 
     people who could afford to spend a few years away from their 
     life's work, corporation executives sent by their employers 
     for business purposes, and men and women with a single 
     passionately held goal.

  What is strikingly absent from this list is the person whose public 
service is marked by commitment to the best ideals of the Nation, who 
is not captive to special interests and who has gained the experience 
and expertise to best serve the people who elected him or her to 
Congress.
  Term limits is a narrow slogan that offers a ``magic bullet'' 
solution to a set of concerns that the voters have already resolved 
through the ballot box by giving the Republicans a majority in Congress 
and electing new representatives in half the races since 1990.
  Reject this simplistic and dangerous solution. Vote ``no'' on the 
Hilleary term limit proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] who along with her staff 
has put in countless hours on this bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers established this body 
on the ideal of a citizen legislature.
  Their goal was to maintain the free flow of ideas through a steady 
rotation of individuals who saw public service, as just that, a service 
to the public--not a career.
  We have a chance to uphold the wishes of our Founding Fathers this 
evening by passing a term limits amendment.
  In addition we have a chance to pass an amendment that would not only 
respect the wishes of our Founding Fathers but would also respect the 
spirit of the Contract With America, by recognizing States rights.
  The amendment is the Hilleary-freshman amendment. Mr. Chairman, the 
contract reads:
  ``House Republicans respect the rights of the States and respect the 
rights of citizens to limit the terms of their elected officials.''
  The Hilleary amendment sets a maximum 12-year limit on the terms of 
both House and Senate Members. However, it respects the limits, even 
stricter limits, already established by 22 States nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, whether it be the amendment offered by Mr. Hilleary, 
Mr. Inglis, or Mr. McCollum, I will support final passage.
  In 22 States, term limits have been initiated by citizens and have 
passed, on average 2 to 1; 80 percent of Americans support term limits, 
and I am one of them. I urge all my colleagues--on both sides of the 
aisle--to join with the American people.
  The public has spoken. We must pass term limits tonight.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], our colleague 
on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank my colleague from Michigan for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, I think the American public will 
understand that we have been engaged in a giant charade throughout the 
course of today. Everybody in this body knows that this term limit 
proposal, any version of it, is going down to defeat. Every version of 
it is going down to defeat.
  So why are we here? We are here because there was a reference to term 
limits in the Contract With America. So in debating this term limit 
issue, I think it is necessary to talk a little bit about some myths 
about this Contract With America and expose some myths about this whole 
idea of term limits.
  First of all, there is this myth out there that the Contract With 
America is conservative. Well, let me tell you, my friends, since when 
is reversing 200 years of history and democracy a conservative 
philosophy?
  Since when is a constant attack on the Constitution of the United 
States a conservative philosophy?
  That is what we have been engaged in this entire term as we have 
addressed these issues in the Contract With America.
  In dealing with the line-item veto, we have had under attack article 
1, section 1 of the Constitution. The Effective Death Penalty Act, 
article 1, section 9 of the Constitution. National Defense 
Revitalization Act, the Defense Reauthorization Review Commission being 
set up, an attack on article 2, section 2 of the Constitution. 
Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, an attack on the fourth amendment to the 
Constitution. The takings legislation, the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution under attack.
  And here we are again calling ourselves conservatives as we 
constantly seek to undermine the most conservative document, the 
contract, the ultimate Contract With America, the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Since when is limiting the voters' choice in who they can elect to 
the Congress of the United States a conservative philosophy? It is not 
conservative, my friends, this whole term limit debate. It is 
undemocratic and I submit to you, it is un-American. It is radical.
  Since when is this cavalier notion that these group of people in this 
body are smarter than the Founding Fathers of our country a 
conservative philosophy?
  But my friends here would have us believe that we are engaged in some 
kind of conservative undertaking by supporting their effort, their 
Contract With America, by supporting term limits in this case.
  There is a second myth I want to go after about this Contract With 
America. That is the myth that there is 
 [[Page H3951]] something consistent about this Contract With America, 
or that it is based on some consistent philosophical principles.
  You tell me how it is consistent to tell the American people you 
believe in States rights when you preempt State law on legal standards 
which have been the exclusive province of the States for years and 
years? Tell the States how much time they must give to a criminal under 
their own laws and tell them you believe in States rights. Block-grant 
one day and preempt State laws the next day and tell them you believe 
in States rights, and, my friends, the Hilleary amendment, this 
amendment that we are here talking about today, wants to tell the 
American people that you believe in States rights and you believe in
 Federal rights. Inconsistency. You want to have your cake and eat it 
too.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not know whether it believes in 
States rights on the one hand, we are going to give the States the 
right to do what they want, or whether you want to federalize the 
standards. So this whole philosophy that the Contract With America is 
based on some consistent philosophical principle that you believe in 
States rights is just a charade. It is a charade.

                             {time}   1915

  And, my friends, there is a third myth about this Contract With 
America. And that is that it has been well thought out and that it is 
good for the American people. In fact, it is shortsighted, it is mean-
spirited and I will submit that at the end of the day today Members 
will see that even the Republicans will not support this plank in the 
Contract With America. They say it will yield a common people's 
Congress. It will yield a rich people's Congress.
  Let us dispense with the charade and vote this piece of trash down.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will admonish our visitors this evening that 
public displays are not permitted under the rules of the House.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, talk about a charade and wanting to 
have your cake and eating it too; to say that it is undemocratic and 
radical and to say we think we are smarter than the Founding Fathers 
because we want to amend the Constitution when it is time to amend the 
Constitution smacks of blatant hypocrisy.
  If we followed this reasoning we would follow the reasoning of those 
who supported Plessy versus Robinson.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I knew we 
would be talking about slavery before we were through.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. There is something we have called the 13th amendment 
and 14th amendment.
  Following the logic of Plessy versus Ferguson, the 13th amendment and 
14th amendment, and those who opposed that, using the gentleman's 
logic, we would still have slavery because anybody that wanted to end 
slavery would have been ``smarter than the Founding Fathers.''
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I would love to, but I think my time has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure 
that we understand the height of hypocrisy. The height of hypocrisy is 
when anybody black gets up to talk on this floor, we end up talking 
about slavery on the other side. That is the height of hypocrisy.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. No, I will not yield.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. It is about constitutional law, it is not about 
whether you are black or white.
  Mr. KLINK. Regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida was not recognized.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I will not yield. Would you yield to me 
when I have the time? You use your time and we will have a colloquy 
about Plessy versus Ferguson not Plessy versus Robinson, as you are 
talking about. If you want to have a colloquy with me, you get the time 
and I will be happy to debate with the gentleman.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I will gladly do it, gladly.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I personally wish that we did not need term 
limits but we do. The institution of Congress became arrogant and out 
of touch. The people want a citizen legislature.
  I have some friendly advice for some of the senior Members of this 
body from both sides of the aisle. If you think your seat in Congress 
belongs to you, and not the people, it's time for you to go home.
  Because the Republican leadership had the courage to finally bring a 
vote on term limits, you can vote against term limits this year, and 
the folks back home can vote against you next year.
  When I was growing up, the Fram oil filter man used to say: ``Pay me 
now or pay me later.''
  While I plan to vote for all of the majority amendments, I much 
prefer the Hilleary amendment. I commend my colleague the gentleman 
from Tennessee for his recognition of the people's will in 22 States 
and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must admonish our guests again this evening 
that under the rules of the House public displays, outbursts and 
displays are not permitted. The Chair thanks them for their 
cooperation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, this is our weekly constitutional amendment 
and this week we are debating term limits. There is lots of debate in 
this Chamber over the last several months about school prayer. Tonight 
we are dealing with the politician's prayer, the prayers of many of my 
colleagues who give spirited speeches in favor of term limits but pray 
to God it will not pass or at least not apply to them.
  The history of the House of Representatives tells us that about 
12,000 men and women have had the high honor to serve in this body. 
Many have been real giants on both sides of the aisle, and it has been 
my honor in the 12 years I have served to know them. Claude Pepper, Tip 
O'Neill, Lindy Boggs. On the Republican side, Silvio Conte, Bob Michel, 
and so many others who would have been precluded from completing their 
careers by the debate that we have in this Chamber today.
  Here is the bottom line: For many members of the House of 
Representatives, 2 years are too long and for others, 20 years are not 
long enough.
  The judgment on the men and women who serve in this House whether it 
should be 2 years, 20 years or more is a judgment in America to be made 
by the real power brokers, the people we serve. And in the case of this 
House of Representatives, every 24 months we stand to be judged by 
those voters.
  Let me tell my colleagues what a House of Representatives populated 
by lame ducks, idle rich, dim-witted short-timers means. It is a dream 
come true for the lobbyists, for the special interests and the 
bureaucrats, because as Members of Congress come and go under these 
term limits scenarios, the lobbyists and the bureaucrats are going to 
linger on. They will be the ones with the information, the money, and 
the power. And the people just passing through will be doing their 
bidding instead of calling the tune. Their power will grow as the 
quality and experience of Members of Congress diminishes under term 
limits.
  It was my honor in the last 2 years to chair a subcommittee of 
Appropriations which appropriated $67 billion a year and was 
responsible for 130,000 Federal employees. After 8 years of serving on 
the committee, I had the responsibility and honor of chairing it. At 
that point, I felt I had reached a 
 [[Page H3952]] level where I could debate with the bureaucracy and the 
special interests and make real and significant reform and change, and 
it happened.
  Had I been wandering through here in 2 years or 4 years or 6, folks, 
it would have been a lot tougher. We count on experience in every walk 
of life. You do not ask for the surgeon fresh out of medical school, 
you do not ask for the banker fresh out of business school, you ask for 
people with experience because experience counts in real life and 
experience counts in the House of Representatives.
  Think twice before we impose term limits and lose the real strength 
of our House of Representatives.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Washington State [Mr. Nethercutt].
  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Tennessee for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hilleary amendment.
  The American people already know about term limits. They are watching 
us closely to see if our actions speak as loud as our words. Twenty-two 
States have term limits, with more surely to follow.
  My election to this body is a direct result of my recognizing the 
right of the people of the State of Washington to enact term limits.
  That is the beauty of this amendment. It respects the decision in my 
State to limit terms.
  The Hilleary amendment is carefully drafted to embody the spirit of 
the Contract With America, and the spirit of the freshman class.
  We freshman have come to Washington to change the status quo to be 
different than our predecessors. As the new majority party, we have the 
ability now to make it easier for future generations to serve in this 
body.
  The Hilleary amendment provides for a uniform upper limit of 12 years 
of service, but it also allows States to create their own more 
restrictive limits or keep the ones they already have.
  The Contract With America calls for change in the way we do business 
in Congress and a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal 
Government.
  This amendment accomplishes both goals. It allows a regular, 
reasonable turnover in the membership of Congress. It will assure that 
new people with new energy and new ideas contribute to better 
government. And, it will demonstrate to the American public that 
States' rights are not ignored by Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to remember the mandate of election day 1994.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Hilleary amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, with some pleasure, I yield 7 minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the comanager of this 
bill and the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding the time.
  The Chairman, I am voting against term limits. People have talked 
about the effect on the competency of the body, and I agree; and they 
have talked about other things. For me there is one overriding reason. 
I believe in democracy, in representative democracy, untrammeled, 
unrestricted, unrestrained.
  What this amendment does is impinge on the right of a given group of 
voters at a given moment in time to make whatever decision it wishes.
  People have said well, how can it be undemocratic, a majority is for 
it. I did not think in the 20th century, after all that we have seen, 
in which majority have people temporarily taken away democratic rights 
from others and indeed even yielded up their own, I did not think that 
needed to be explained.
  But democracy is not simply what a given majority in a public opinion 
poll thinks at a given time. It is an entire structure of government, 
it is majority rule with minority rights; it is the prevention of 
permanence, because with majority rule you recognize the right of a 
later majority, a differently composed majority of newer people to 
change things.
  What you would do if you amended the Constitution today in this 
manner or began the process is to lock in what today's majority thinks 
as a restriction on any future group.
  Second, you would take away the rights from individuals. Particular 
groups of individuals may not want to have their Representative 
limited. That is what you are doing, what you are saying. And we are 
being told 80 percent think that.
  It has not been my impression that 80 percent has been the uniform 
vote in referenda, so maybe it is 50 percent plus 2, maybe it is 65 
percent, but the number is not the relevant factor. What is relevant is 
that democracy says at any given time the voters should be allowed to 
make up their minds.
  What this amendment is fundamentally is an effort to find a shortcut 
around tough decisions. We have had a number of these coming in the 
contract. Cutting the budget and reducing the deficit is hard, because 
the deficit is an agglomeration of programs that got there because they 
got political support.
  Rather than talk about the specifics of cutting, the majority leader 
said you do not want people's knees to buckle when they see what is 
really up. People provide procedural approaches to try to get around 
tough issues. This is one more of those. But it is a procedural 
approach that restricts democracy.
  What is the matter with a system that says the voters can do whatever 
they want to do whenever they want to do it? And the honest thing I 
have heard is constant invocation of the Founding Fathers, the people 
who wrote the Constitution, to be told that they are really for 
something that is in there. I have to ask the brilliant constitutional 
scholars who have been advancing that, is it your contention that the 
Constitutional Convention meant to include term limits but they forgot? 
Was it a drafting error, did they run out of time? If they wanted to do 
it, why did they not do it?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the constitutional scholar 
from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so much. I will 
not expand on Plessy v. Ferguson, but I will answer the gentleman's 
question with a question. There are writings in the Federalist Papers 
by James Madison that say that in general he would support the idea of 
a limited term for Representatives.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That answer is astounding.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Well, thank you, I appreciate that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I say in my question if the Founding 
Fathers wanted to put it in the Constitution, why did they not? The 
gentleman said well, after the Constitution was over and it was not in 
there, in the Federalist Papers, one member of the Constitutional 
Convention said he liked it.

                              {time}  1930

  Maybe he liked the idea later. Maybe he did or did not. But the 
notion that the later reference to a concept in a series of essays 
somehow explains why that concept was not in the document is mindless. 
The gentleman did a better job before.
  Again, the question was if the Founding Fathers meant to do this, why 
did they not. That would seem a simple question. The answer is, well, 
they did not, but one of them mentioned it in a book. If the gentleman 
thinks that is an answer, he understands even less than I thought.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will say this, 
not only were there certain things excluded from the Constitution, 
there were other things mentioned that were not included in there such 
as issues regarding what eventually came in under the 13th and 14th 
amendments and the women's right to vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I have to say to the 
gentleman the answer gets less and less intelligible. The fact is he 
says, oh, the explanation for that not being in there is that there are 
other things that were not in there. I understand that. There were a 
lot of things that were not in 
 [[Page H3953]] there. But do not take the absence of this concept from 
the Constitution and argue that its absence really meant that they 
meant it.
  This is fundamentally a derogation from the democratic process. It is 
an argument that you really cannot trust elections on a year-in, year-
out basis, and it deprives individuals of their right to vote for 
whoever they want to vote for whenever they want to vote for them, and 
for that reason more than any other, I oppose it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I would just suggest that there is an answer to why it was 
not included in the Constitution.
  In the original Articles of Confederation there was a limit on the 
period of time in which you could serve. You could not serve for longer 
than 3 years within a 6-year period. It did not work.
  And so there was a debate, in fact, precedent to the Constitution, 
and it was deliberately decided not to include term limits, because it 
did not work when the Articles of Confederation were the law of the 
land. So it is deliberate that we do not have term limits in the 
Constitution, and that is one of the reasons why I do not think we 
should change the Constitution at this point either.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for clearing that 
up.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, the gentleman earlier 
referred to the idea of a charade around here. What has been the 
charade around here has been the past 40 years when this issue has 
never come up for a vote on this floor of the House of Representatives 
in the past, and when the former Speaker of this House, the Democrat, 
sues his own State because they want to limit his terms. That is a 
charade, folks.
  And tonight I rise in support of term limits, the substitute offered 
by my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Hilleary].
  I have been a strong supporter of term limits in my campaign and was 
a proud cosponsor of the McCollum term limits bill. However, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] has developed even stronger 
language than the base bill, because the Hilleary substitute maximizes 
the ability of voters to participate in their government. It recognizes 
the rights of the people and the rights of the States over the rights 
of the Washington politicians, and I would also like to say that no 
matter whether the Hilleary version or the McCollum version get the 
most votes, I urge my colleagues to vote for final passage tonight.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Serrano], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to all term limit amendments as they come here 
today. It is a silly notion put together by a bunch of losers.
  Let us understand what we mean by that. The current movement started 
when some people who were running against incumbents lost and decided 
they were going to fix their defeats by creating this new movement. You 
recall a few years ago that is how it started.
  I stand before you today as probably the person that should be used 
as the poster child for the anti-term-limits movement.
  Yesterday was my 5th anniversary in Congress. I have already gone 
more than half the House in seniority in those 5 years. So obviously 
there is nothing broken that needs to be fixed. People are leaving this 
place. People are making other decisions. People are being defeated. 
There is no need to do this kind of a thing.
  Now, every so often you get an opportunity to speak to people from 
Latin America who always question why we spend so much time in this 
country trying to undo our democracy. They tell us, ``You know, we 
would give our lives, and we do in many cases, to have your democracy. 
And what do you do? You talk about airport parking, you talk about 
salaries, you talk about people's private lives and term limits. We 
want an election. We want the ability to elect someone, and you want to 
unelect people.''
  Now, in the last election, I receive 98 percent of the vote with an 
opponent. That was the highest in the Nation. According to you, the 
voters in my district were dumb and did not know what they were doing, 
and they should not be allowed to do that ever again, because they are 
dangerous to us, to themselves, and to their families, to their 
community, and certainly they are endangering my life.
  And last but not least, under your plan, you would have to elect the 
most progressive people in the Nation who would come together every so 
often, look at each other and say, ``A couple of Hispanics, a couple of 
African-Americans, a couple of women, let's make those two chairmen of 
committees, that one subcommittee chairman. Let us give them 
equality.'' The seniority system works. Term limits is for losers. Let 
it stay with the losers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amending the U.S. Constitution 
to limit the terms of Members of Congress.
  The Republicans keep talking about what a historic day this is. Well, 
that may be, but not for the reasons they claim. The House is being 
asked to vote on a measure of historic silliness, a measure that 
represents a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that, if it ever existed 
at all, no longer exists.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits are simply silly. The American people 
already have--and exercised as recently as last November 8--the right 
to limit the length of service of their own Senators and Members of the 
House of Representatives.
  It is argued that term limits are necessary to wrench legislatures 
away from entrenched career politicians, and the evidence of 
entrenchment is the high reelection rate of incumbents who seek 
reelection.
  Incumbents who seek reelection, Mr. Chairman. We all know--or know 
of--incumbents who chose not to run for reelection because they knew 
they were likely to lose. Likely to lose, Mr. Chairman. They decided to 
go out gracefully rather than spend the time or raise and spend the 
money and be rejected all the same.
  But look at my brief service in the House. I was elected in March 
1990. In November 1990, 45 seats changed hands. In November 1992, 
another 110. In November 1994, another 87. By my calculations, at least 
242 seats--more than half the membership of the House--have changed 
hands since March 1990.
  The term limits movement is the brain child of losers, plain and 
simple. They ran for Congress and lost. Unable to remove incumbents 
through the normal political process, they have created a movement to 
remove incumbents automatically. They have been helped, and much public 
support has been whipped up, by radio talk show hosts and other 
professional Congress-bashers, who persist in painting government 
service as corrupting.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, I am bilingual in Spanish and English, so I 
can keep in touch with scholars and politicians in Latin America. And 
all the time I hear, ``What is it about you Americans, that you are 
constantly trashing your own Government? What is it about you Americans 
that you spend so much time worrying about how much money Members of 
Congress make, what they drive, where they park, whether they have a 
gym? And now you are going to kick them out after a certain amount of 
time regardless of how the people they represent feel about them?''
  Mr. Chairman, this comes from a part of the world where people 
literally die to have a government like ours, literally die for the 
opportunity to elect someone and keep electing them for as long as they 
want, not see them shot in the middle of the campaign. And they look at 
us and say to me, ``Serrano, que es lo que pasa?''
  And they're right, Mr. Chairman. This is crazy.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits aren't just silly, they are unfair to 
groups within our society that have traditionally been underrepresented 
in Congress. In the 30 years since the Voting Rights Act was enacted, 
minority and women Members have increased in numbers and increased in 
influence through the seniority system.
  [[Page H3954]] In fact, cynics observe that just as certain people--
minorities and women--begin to gain some power in Congress, some people 
decided it is time to curtail terms. And once that's done, only the 
most good-hearted, progressive group of Members would look around and 
say, You know, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Watts, Ms. Velazquez, we think we will 
share some of the power and influence in this place with you.
  Term limits aren't just silly and unfair, they represent a major 
shift in power away from the people's branch of the Government. If we 
limit terms, sooner or later we will find Congress playing catchup to 
the executive branch, congressional staff, and lobbyists. So 10 years 
from now, we will see a new movement of people who demand unlimited 
terms, who say ``let people run.''
  Mr. Chairman, I was sworn in on March 28, 1990. I chose that day 
because it was the 38th anniversary of my parents' arrival from Puerto 
Rico. I thought it would be a great tribute to their many years of 
working in a factory to give their children a better life to have their 
son enter Congress that day. I know they would not have thought of 
Congress as an institution that would corrupt their son or turn him 
into something they did not bring him up to be.
  And that is why at bottom term limits are dangerous. they reinforce 
the false notion that Congress and our entire Federal Government are 
corrupt and that anyone who serves more than a certain time, regardless 
of his or her accomplishments or contributions, is by definition 
crooked and unworthy of serving the American people any more. That 
simply is wrong, and serves only to further diminish our most basic 
institutions in the public's eyes.
  Mr. Chairman, some of our most eminent Members on both sides of the 
aisle are walking advertisements for letting the people choose their 
own representatives as many times as they like. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose any constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner].
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in unequivocal support of term 
limits. In 1992, 74 percent of the people of Missouri voted in favor of 
an 8-year term limit for their U.S. representatives and a 12-year term 
limit for their U.S. Senators.
  As a strong supporter of term limits while serving in the Missouri 
State Senate and now as a member of the United States Congress, I agree 
with the peoples' decision.
  Unfortunately, the original amendment I cosponsored, which would have 
provided limits identical to those passed in Missouri, will not be 
considered under the existing rule. There is, however, an acceptable 
alternative--the Hilleary amendment.
  This amendment provides for 12-year limits of service for both House 
and Senate Members, yet--and this is very important--it protects 
individual States' laws limiting the congressional terms of service for 
their own Members. Since the Hilleary amendment works within the 
framework established by the people of Missouri, I strongly believe 
this amendment is the best alternative.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to remember where they 
came from, and remember where they are, in most cases, going back to--
and vote to allow the States to implement their own term limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume], the distinguished former chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to stand here this evening and join with other Members of this 
body in absolute and unequivocal opposition of this nonsense in all of 
its versions that have been before us tonight and state a brief but 
very succinct case as to why. And on this particular bill, because it 
allows for all sorts of limits to be placed, in other words, you could 
serve for 12 years or your State could have you serve for 2 years, it 
creates chaos in a Government that is already too chaotic, and has no 
uniformity that brings about any sense of resolution of problems.
  I keep hearing over and over and over again from Members who are in 
support of this, ``Well, you know, the majority of the American people 
want this. The majority of the American people think it is the right 
thing to do.''
  We were sent here to govern on what was right and what was wrong and 
not to read some poll commissioned and published in a publication. If 
we have to do that, we do not need to be here, and maybe then term 
limits are effective. I do not want anybody representing me reading 
poll results and basing their work on that instead of using their 
judgment that they ought to have intuitively to do what is right and to 
see beyond the hype.
  The last time I looked, since someone raised the question before, 
slavery was considered to be all right in the minds of most people in 
this country, so perhaps that is why all of those former Congresses 
just kept on voting it through and voting it through. The last time I 
looked, in 1939, the majority of the people in this country turned 
their backs on Jewish Americans and turned around the Saint Louis from 
the ports of Florida and sent it back to Europe so that people could be 
killed and found to be in all sorts of, or all kinds of things 
happening to them because the majority of people wanted it.
  The majority of people in this country did not want women to have the 
right to vote. So if you read a public opinion poll in 1905 and you 
were in Congress, of course, you were going to vote against women's 
suffrage.
  Please, do not give me that. Between death, voters, and voluntary 
change of occupation, 206 Members of this body in the last 3 years are 
no longer here. That is almost half. You do not need term limits to do 
that. You will not need them in the future to do that.
  People make the choices as they have the right to do every 2 years, 
and for those who keep quoting the Constitution, well, here it is, 
ladies and gentlemen. I do not know when is the last time any of you 
read it. Beside it happens to be the Federalist papers, but, look, 
there is nothing in it that says you have to stay here. You can leave. 
And, in fact, if you believe in 6 years, please, go, so that we can 
carry on the people's work.
  Let us not be disingenuous. Every Member of this body knows that none 
of these measures are going to pass tonight. Everybody knows that. And 
if you are honest, you would say it. But we are going to play games and 
have a charade.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the most distinguished Member 
I have served with on the other side of the aisle, has said over and 
over again we do not need the dumbing down of the Congress. This ought 
to be about substance and true debate and not a charade. We know that 
all of these measures are going to fail tonight.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], who, along with his staff, 
helped an awful lot on this amendment.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Tennessee for his hard work. He took the best of the 
McCollum bill and the best of the Inglis bill and put together an even 
better bill, a bill that will protect the rights of the citizens, those 
citizens of Washington State, for example, who took out petitions, went 
door to door, went to shopping malls, went outside at the State fairs, 
went out and gathered signatures, because they wanted to change 
Congress.
  Why did they want to change Congress? Because we had a Congress that 
was more interested in doing what they wanted to do than what the 
people wanted to do, that was more interested in getting reelected than 
it was doing what was right, and things need to change.
  We have heard a lot on this floor about the reason why we need term 
limits, because we need experience. Well, the folks across the aisle 
for the last 40 years have had a lot of experience, experience in 
raising our taxes, experience in raising the debt, experience in 
raising the deficit.
  Now, to use the example, the Founding Fathers did not talk about 
that, well, maybe they did not know we would have 40 years of raising 
taxes and raising the debt. They would have wanted term limits.
  [[Page H3955]] The people want a new experience, my friends. They 
want a new change. And they want term limits. And that is exactly what 
we plan on giving them, and the Hilleary amendment is the best 
approach.
  I urge your support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to move the debate along as 
quickly as we can, and I would like to reach across the aisle and yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the 
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise here tonight reluctantly to oppose the Hilleary 
amendment, and I say reluctantly because of several reasons.
  One, I respect the gentleman very much, and I know what he has 
offered is genuine. There are many Members on my side of the aisle and 
the other side of the aisle who do accept the concepts embodied in this 
amendment, and reluctantly because I am a term-limits supporter, and I 
will vote for this version should it prevail and get to final passage.
  I do not agree with a lot of the rhetoric we have heard here tonight 
in opposition to this amendment and others.
  But I do, nonetheless, believe I need to put on the record why I am 
going to vote against this amendment in the Committee of the Whole. The 
reason why is because I do not want to see us put into the Constitution 
a provision that gives the States greater rights than they have today 
under the Constitution, because I fear that if we wind up, after the 
Supreme Court decides the Arkansas case with a ruling, that says that 
under the present constitutional provisions, the States cannot do what 
they have been doing in these initiatives; we will then have passed the 
Hilleary amendment, and we will wind up in a situation where we will 
have given the States more rights than the Supreme Court says they have 
today, and that will assure a hodgepodge for a long time to come of 6 
years, 8 years, 12 years for the House for many of the States around 
the country and many of the locations.
                              {time}  1945

  Now there are some who will say that is perfectly fine. I disagree 
with some of my colleagues who like the 6 years or the 8 years in large 
measure because I do not think that it is smart for us to have a term 
limit less for the House than for the Senate. I think it makes a weaker 
body for the House vis-a-vis the Senate in conference committees and so 
on.
  I also think that it is a problem if we do that and have a 
hodgepodge. I do not believe that we will see the States do what some 
have suggested and, over time, go up to the cap of 12 years the 
gentleman sets. I think the politics and the political reality means 
some States will always have lower limits than the cap is, and 
therefore some States will have big advantages out here. Those who do 
not go to those higher limits will be disadvantaged, their Members will 
be in committee work, in seniority in the system that we have under 
term limits.
  So I think the absence of uniformity is generally a bad idea, though 
my underlying base amendment allows whatever the Supreme Court to 
decide to be the case, and if indeed the Supreme Court decides that the 
States currently have the right to do what they have been doing, then 
so be it. I am silent on it, the base bill is silent on it, but I must, 
as I say, oppose this now. I do not believe we ought to give the States 
a right in the Constitution they do not currently have, and I urge a no 
vote on the Hilleary amendment.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Hilleary] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of term limits and the Hilleary 
substitute. My comments will probably not be as eloquent as a number of 
the other people on the other side of the aisle that have been here 
quite a bit longer than we have.
  This is primarily a freshman initiative and one that we are putting 
forward, and so we do not, perhaps, have quite the member of years of 
experience that a number of other people do in this body. I think that 
we bring the will of the people clearly with us because one of the key 
reasons to have term limits, one of the key reasons it has not been 
discussed so much today to have term limits and limiting terms, is 
limiting government. I say, if you generally have people here for long 
periods of time, they're looking to build something for a legacy to 
live for for their life, and here is something of a legacy that they 
put forward, and the longer one is here, the more they want to build 
something, and that builds some more government, and that gets away 
from limited government toward an expansive government that we have had 
over the past number of years to a $5 trillion debt that is a mortgage 
on the children, and we have got to cut it back. The reason to have 
term limits is to limit government.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond very briefly to a couple of the 
arguments put forward here tonight already. One is that, well, if we 
have term limits, we are going to give all the power to the lobbyists 
and bureaucrats. I would ask my colleagues, ``Who has it now? Who is 
taking it now?'' I concede that a number of it would go to those places 
already.
  A second point that people put forward is, well, it was not in the 
Constitution. Well, limiting the President to just two terms was not in 
the Constitution, but it was put forward by the people after we had a 
President that served nearly four terms, a very good President, I might 
add, that served nearly four terms, but the people said we do not need 
the same leaders for life, we do not need them for a career, we ought 
to have different people cycling in and out with new ideas and new 
leadership, and that is what term limits is about, new ideas, new 
leadership. We do not need the same people even though they are good 
people. There should be turnover coming into this body, and I think 
that is what the people are saying in their support for term limits, 
and those are the reasons that I strongly support term limits.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Hilleary] for yielding this time to me, and I want to compliment 
and commend the freshman class for their initiative and for the good 
work they have done on the term limits proposal before us.
  I believe in term limits. I have supported it in the Arkansas 
Legislature.
  I think that we have come a long, long ways in the last 2 years in 
the House of Representatives. I say to my colleagues, I can remember 2 
years ago, when you could only get a handful of cosponsors for term 
limits legislation. I can remember when we couldn't get a hearing, we 
couldn't get a committee to take this proposal seriously. We have come 
a long way.
  Twenty-two States have adopted it, and, Mr. Chairman, where the 
States have it it is working. It has brought healthy change, and the 
question ought not be before us: Well, how many good public servants 
are we going to lose if we have term limits? The question ought to be: 
How many great public servants will we never give an opportunity to 
serve in the House of Representatives because we do not have term 
limits?
  Mr. Chairman, the Hilleary amendment, I think, is a good approach. It 
establishes a 12-year ceiling. It respects the rights of States to be 
more restrictive. In my home State of Arkansas the people, by more than 
a 60-percent vote, established a 6-year term limit. What right do we 
have up here to double that by passing a 12-year without allowing them 
to have more restrictive laws and honoring what they have done?
  Politicians are like cookies. They get stale, and term limits will 
freshen this place up.
  One of my colleagues said term limits are for losers, and I suggest 
to my colleagues that it is that very attitude that has fueled the term 
limits movement. It is not for losers. Eighty percent of the American 
people support it, and there is wisdom in the common sense of 
mainstream America who says we need to have term limits. It is a 
 [[Page H3956]] populist movement that is sweeping America.
  How can we deny the people, through their State legislatures, the 
right to debate and, if they so desire, to ratify an amendment to the 
Constitution that would limit the terms of their elected Congressmen, a 
proposal supported by almost 80 percent of the American people?
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the Hilleary amendment and the 
substitute tonight. I think it is a very reasonable approach. It allows 
States to have their own term limit if they want to go for 6 years, 10 
years or whatever. It is important. But I also think the thing about 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] 
that is important is that it does embody not just this current freshman 
class, but a new spirit in America saying, ``Come on home, guys. We 
don't want you to be prima donnas and become Washingtonian on us.''
  Term limits is a concept. Think about it. We limit the term of the 
President of the United States. He is in charge, he or she is in 
charge, of the greatest country the world has ever seen, 260 million 
people, but a limited term. In my hometown on a smaller basis we limit 
the term of our mayor, and yet our mayor does a fine job.
  Mr. Chairman, I was a part of the Georgia General Assembly. The 
Georgia General Assembly is comprised of citizen legislators, 
housewives, doctors, railroad retirees, lawyers, teachers, farmers, 
business people. All of them are connected to the real world. That is 
what term limits is all about, to get rid of professional politicians.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this a good idea, and I hope my colleagues will 
support the Hilleary amendment.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is the only place in America that I 
know of where there is really a whole lot of doubt about this issue. 
There is a fog around this place like I have never seen before. I said 
something this morning that I believe more this evening. I ran on term 
limits personally saying I would only serve 12 years. I regret that the 
6-year amendment did not pass. I am about to change my mind.
  This place up here is amazing. We spend money like they are not going 
to make it anymore, and I wonder why the government is the way it is.
  I say, ``You need to come up here and visit for a while. People are 
so detached from reality that it really is amazing.''
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] 
in my opinion is a good compromise. It reforms Congress, which we 
desperately need to do, and it allows the States to chart their own 
course.
  Two things I ran on: reforming this institution and allow the States 
to chart their own course.
  I say to my colleagues, please vote for this amendment if you want to 
change America.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, earlier we heard that term limits is 
mean spirited. I thought I heard it all last week, but this statement 
takes the cake. Somehow the protectors of the old order think that 70 
percent of the American people are mean spirited. Well, we are having a 
debate, the first one here on term limits in 40 years, and it is 
welcomed by the American people.
  In my State of Nebraska, Mr. Chairman, the voters overwhelmingly 
support term limits. As their Representative and as their hired hand, I 
am looking forward to casting that vote here tonight. As my colleagues 
know, I was an original cosponsor on the McCollum bill, but, as my 
colleagues know, the McCollum bill takes away States rights, and I will 
be voting against the McCollum bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Hilleary] because it protects States rights in the 22 States who have 
term limits.
  We need to pass the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Hilleary]. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Hilleary] for all his hard work on this issue. He has put together a 
coalition, I believe, that is the envy of everybody in this body in a 
very, very short time, and I praise his efforts. I would also like to 
praise the 20 percent of my Democrat colleagues who support the term 
limits concept and the 80 percent of my Republican colleagues who 
support the same concept.
  As my colleagues know, it is interesting. I heard one of the 
opponents say that only losers support term limits. Twenty-two States 
have passed term-limits laws, and what I am hearing from the opposition 
is the voters were smart because they voted for them, but they were not 
so smart when they voted for term-limits laws. What could be more 
democratic than 38 States having to ratify what we pass out today?
  This does not end here. After we pass this as a constitutional 
amendment, it goes out to the States, and they then will make that 
decision.
  I would like to tell my colleagues a little bit about Arizona's term-
limits law because 5 years ago, when I started in the Arizona 
legislature, I sponsored the first term-limits law. I might point out 
also that it was a Democrat controlled Senate and they would not even 
hear the bill. Well, the people in Arizona got so frustrated that they, 
through the initiative process, went out and collected tens of 
thousands of signatures during the hot Arizona summer, and let me tell 
my colleagues it is hot and sweltering, and they collected the 
signatures to get it on the ballot. Seventy-four percent of the people 
in our State voted in favor of term limits.
  Now I think that we have talked a lot about deferring to the States, 
about deferring to the will of the people. Here we have an opportunity 
to put up or shut up. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] gives the ability of the States to determine 
how long that their Representatives will serve. It is the ultimate in 
democracy. It allows the States to make that decision, but it sets a 
12-year cap. I cannot understand why there would be any opposition to 
that.
  Now I do not know if the Founding Fathers would have ever placed term 
limits initially. I cannot say that; I was not there, did not even get 
the T-shirt. But I will tell my colleagues this:
  The Founding Fathers never envisioned a Congress like this that has 
plunged this country $5 trillion into debt. The American people deserve 
better, and, if we had 6 years or 12 years to serve in Congress, we 
would have a time certain, and we might stop the nonsense.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] and think that it really is an 
excellent way to go here, and I want to thank two folks or two groups 
of people in particular. First is the freshmen that have made such a 
tremendous contribution to where we are today.
  As my colleagues know, prior to the 1992 election there were 30 
cosponsors of term-limits legislation. After the 1992 election, where 
my class came in, there were over a hundred. Now, as a result of this 
new freshman class, I think today we are going to be way over 200. That 
is tremendous growth, and it is because of the people that are standing 
right here.
  And in answer to something that the gentleman from Michigan asked 
earlier, how many of these folks would limit themselves, well, look at 
the freshman class, and my colleagues will find the answer. As I look 
across this sea of freshmen over here that are supporting this 
amendment, I will tell the gentleman from Michigan that quite a few of 
them are going to limit themselves to the term limit that they propose. 
The proof is in the pudding with these folks, and it is very exciting 
to 
 [[Page H3957]] have them here and to have them part of this exciting 
and historic debate.
  The second group that I think it is important to thank at this point 
for where we are in term limits is the leadership of this House. What a 
tremendous thing, to have a Speaker who is willing to bring this to the 
floor, a majority leader who is passionately for us, a subcommittee 
chairman of the constitutional committee of the Committee on the 
Judiciary who helped us get this far and everybody in between. It is an 
exciting day for term limits. There is the Committee on Rules chairman 
right there who worked very hard to get this rule to where we could win 
or get the closest to winning. It is an exciting day for term limits, 
and I particularly support the approach of the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Hilleary] here. It makes a whole lot of sense.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed the debate on the most mixed up term-limit 
proposal of all, and that is the one that we are going to vote on in 
just a few minutes. Why is it mixed up? Well, it says not only will we 
put a 12-year Federal limitation on, but we will also allow each State 
to put six, five, four, three, two, one, yes, one term, if they choose, 
on, and it gives the States, as the gentleman from Florida pointed out, 
powers that are not presently in the Constitution.
                              {time}  2000

  I am also delighted to hear the increasing number of Members that 
realize that the constitutional dodge, which is what all this is 
tonight, is not going to be adhered to because they are going to 
voluntarily impose limitations on themselves. And I got up to the 
magnificent number of three people that I have recorded that have 
admitted that they would do that. There may be a fourth or a fifth 
around, I am not sure, and if they are, we want them to identify 
themselves.
  I will still be earnestly soliciting the fervent supporters of 
constitutional amendments to find out who is going to impose it on 
themselves. You will not have to wait seven years. You will not have to 
take it through State legislatures.
  In closing, on polls, the assault weapons ban poll says that there 
are a lot of people in America that want an assault weapon ban, and it 
is not stopping about half the Members of this Congress. Vote this 
amendment down.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished Chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  My colleagues, how did we get ourselves in this mess? Because this 
Congress says yes to everybody and no to nobody. And that is why we 
have a $4.5 trillion debt and about to add another trillion to it if we 
do not do something about it.
  That is why we need term limitations in the worst possible way, so 
that these Members will not depend on this job and all of its salary 
and all of its benefits for a career. They need to come here, do the 
job and go back home.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and 
fellow cosponsor, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hilleary 
amendment and am proud to be an original cosponsor of it. I think it is 
a valuable contribution to one of the most important things we will be 
voting on in this 100 days.
  There has been a lot of talk about the Founding Fathers not putting 
term limits in the Constitution. But there have been many fundamental 
changes in our political process: limits on contributions, campaign 
limits that have made it very difficult for challengers to be able to 
actually challenge an incumbent, franking and other means in which the 
incumbents can preserve their powers.
  We are making great changes in this Congress, and the people made 
great changes in the last election. But we need to be reminded, as Lord 
Acton pointed out, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts 
absolutely. We do not have absolute power, but we do have power in this 
Congress, and we should guard against the possibility that this new 
majority would be corrupted by that power.
  For that reason, I favor term limits because I think it would be a 
shame if what we see as a great advance forward is ended up being 
corrupted by the influences in this institution.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Tennessee for yielding this time.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment to limit the terms for 
people in Congress. I am one of those folks who have only been up here 
about two months as a freshman, and I have taken the voluntary 12-year 
limit on my term, whether these amendments pass or not.
  I think what it boils down to tonight, from what I have listened to 
as I hear the debate, is who is better to decide whether or not we have 
term limits. Many of my colleagues feel that we have more wisdom, we 
are better suited to decided if we need term limits. I think it is the 
American people that need to decide that. And by simply voting for this 
amendment tonight we do not make that decision. We simply hand it over 
to the people back in the States.
  Thirty-eight States still have to ratify this amendment. That gives 
the people of America the opportunity to express clearly to us whether 
or not they want term limits. I believe they do. I believe they ought 
to have that opportunity to decide, and that is why I am supporting 
this amendment.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Chairman, you know there has been a lot of 
conversation about the sincerity of the people who say they believe in 
term limits. Are they political opportunists? Is this just something 
that is a fad, that they do not really mean?
  In 1988, when I originally came to the Congress, I said I would run 
for four terms. This is my fourth term. I will not be a candidate for 
the next term, even though we are now in a majority.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANCOCK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, may I extend to the gentleman my serious 
congratulations because he is the fourth person who is dedicated enough 
to impose term limits upon himself. The gentleman is to be 
congratulated.
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
very much. I appreciate the kind words.
  However, I am convinced, I am convinced that with term limits the 
situations that occurred since I have been in the Congress, the type of 
thing that went on, quite frankly, with the House Bank, that went on 
with the Post Office would never have occurred if we had had term 
limits in the first place.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond.
  From the other side I have heard the allegation now that there is 
only four people. I just kind of wonder where you have been because 
last week there was a press conference held, and there were at least 
nine of us, some from the Democrat ranks as well, that went and signed 
a pledge and turned it in to the Secretary saying that we would not run 
more than our States had authorized us to run.
  The State of Arizona has a six-year term limit and has stated that 
they do not want our representatives serving any more than six. I have 
made that pledge, as have a number of other Members in this Congress, 
and just because the other side does not know it happens does not mean 
it ain't so.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from the 
gentleman from Tennessee. And let me say I am glad that our Contract 
With America has enabled us to have this first-ever vote on an idea so 
popular with the American people. Given that our predecessors in the 
Democrat Congress were never 
 [[Page H3958]] even willing to let term limits be debated, that alone 
is progress.
  And let me add that I am very proud of our Republicans. We have 
overwhelming support for term limits on our side of the aisle, more 
than 90 percent of us will vote ``yes'' tonight. So after tonight, the 
American people will know exactly which party is for term limits, and 
which party is against.
  To the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, and to all of you who 
oppose term limits on principle, let me say I respect your position. 
Reasonable people can and do disagree on this issue, and I have heard 
eloquent arguments on both sides.
  James Madison and George Mason supported term limits. Other equally 
luminous Founders opposed the idea. Obviously, the opponents prevailed 
back then. And perhaps that was the right decision 200 years ago. But 
times have changed, in two important ways.
  First, reelection rates have skyrocketed. Thanks to gerrymandering 
and other devices, challengers now have an unfairly steep hill to 
climb. Term limits would, in effect, return matters to where they stood 
in the beginning, restoring what George Will has called a greater 
constitutional space between incumbents and the special interests that 
seek to control them. Term limits would take away a politician's 
incentive to try to build his own personal empire with other people's 
money.
  The second important change is that the American people now 
overwhelmingly support term limits, to a degree verging on national 
consensus. A number of people today have argued that term limits show 
insufficient trust in the people. Well, I would argue just the 
opposite. The best way to show trust in the people is to respect their 
overwhelming support for term limits.
  To those of you who plan to vote ``no'' on everything today--or vote 
``no'' on final passage--I would simply remind you, as a friend, that 
anything your constituents support by a margin of 4-to-1 merits a good 
second look before you vote ``no.''
  Finally, to those of you who are truly undecided on this issue--to 
those of you who are open to persuasion--I would simply urge you to 
give term limits the benefit of the doubt and vote ``yes.''
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Tonight, Mr. Chairman, I stand on the floor of the House and 
represent almost 25 million Americans who cast votes for term limits in 
22 States. I stand here and represent the thousands of Americans who 
stood out in parking lots, gathered petitions, signatures in sweltering 
summer heat in Arizona, Oklahoma, and California, the frosty weekend 
mornings in the northeast and the rainy afternoons in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  Mr. Speaker, those people who have already fought and won the term 
limit wars in 22 States did not get involved because they were 
Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives. They got 
involved because they were not happy with the Government they were 
getting. They thought the Congress was too permanent and too arrogant. 
They saw a problem and were willing to do something about it.
  Now we have a chance to join together in a bipartisan manner to honor 
that work. With this freshman term limits amendment we have a chance to 
tell people who voted for term limits, this Congress is different. This 
Congress heard your concerns and respected your wishes. Or we can tell 
the people in 22 States that they do not know what they are doing.
  The people have always been way ahead of the politicians on the issue 
of term limits, and now is not the time for the Congress to tell the 
people they were absolutely wrong.
  We all remember a former Speaker of this House who told the people of 
his home State they were wrong to pass term limits. He second-guessed 
the people who sent him here, and he paid a price on election day. 
Those of us in the 104th Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
should not make that same mistake.
  Tonight, I urge my colleagues to vote for a solution that shows 
respect for the most democratic form of lawmaking in this country, the 
citizen initiative. But, most importantly, I urge all of my colleagues 
to vote for the people who stood in those parking lots and to vote for 
those 25 million people who have already cast their votes for term 
limits. I urge my colleagues to support the Hilleary amendment.
  Before I yield back the balance of my time, I would just simply like 
to say that we have had an incredible amount of work put in by so many 
freshmen and sophomores and even some upperclassmen here who got behind 
this bill in a very short period of time, got an awful lot of resolve 
behind it, and it shows a lot of steam. We do not know if we are going 
to win or not, but we are awful proud that we actually paid respect to 
the contract and even the implied promise not only to bring it to the 
House floor for a vote but to do everything we could possibly do to 
have real term limit reform in this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 265, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               AYES--164

     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Orton
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Zimmer

                               NOES--265

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     [[Page H3959]] Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Longley
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     de la Garza
     Gephardt
     Pomeroy
     Stokes

                              {time}  2026

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 104-82.


    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. mccollum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     McCollum: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert 
     the following:

     That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years from the date of its submission to 
     the States by the Congress:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. No person who has been elected for a full term 
     to the Senate two times shall be eligible for election or 
     appointment to the Senate. No person who has been elected for 
     a full term to the House of Representatives six times shall 
     be eligible for election to the House of Representatives.
       ``Section 2. No person who has served as a Senator for more 
     than three years shall subsequently be eligible for election 
     to the Senate more than once. No person who has served as a 
     Representative for more than one year shall subsequently be 
     eligible for election to the House of Representatives more 
     than five times.
       ``Section 3. No election or service occurring before this 
     article becomes operative shall be taken into account when 
     determining eligibility for election under this article.''.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate on this amendment in the nature of a substitute be limited to 15 
minutes per side. We do not need to have a vote on the amendment now, 
and we can go to final passage after that time, if everybody is 
agreeable. I can later withdraw the amendment, if the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is agreeable to that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object we agree to 
the request, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
                              {time}  2030

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have reached a point in this debate on term limits 
now where we are going to have a historic final passage vote in a few 
minutes on the underlying bill, which is the same as my amendment. So 
with the consent of everybody involved to save time, as I said a moment 
ago, I will in a few minutes, after the agreed-upon time has passed, 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and move on to the 
final passage vote.
  What I think needs to be explained, first of all, is what is the vote 
going to be on final passage?
  What my amendment is is a pure vanilla 12-year term limit for both 
the House and the Senate. There is no retroactivity. There is no State 
preemption. There is a provision that simply says that each body, no 
one may serve more than 12 years in either body. It is a permanent 
lifetime limit on both sides.
  It leaves the question of the current debate in front of the Supreme 
Court on the Arkansas case and the state initiatives up to the court. 
It is completely silent on the question with respect to whether or not 
the States currently have any right or any power with respect to the 
election clause in the Constitution, which is where that debate is over 
there right now, to set term limits indirectly through the process they 
have been using of having people have to be a write-in candidate and 
not be able to appear on the ballots.
  Whatever the Supreme Court decides under this amendment would be the 
law of the land, if this one were to pass.
  I, of course, prefer uniformity. If the Court decides that what the 
States have been doing is unconstitutional and this amendment were to 
go out and be ratified by the necessary number of States, then this 12-
year limit would be the law of the land. It would be written into the 
Constitution. It would be uniform nationwide. If on the other hand the 
Supreme Court decides that indeed the States have the power that they 
might have under the argument being made over there right now, the 
States would, of course, which have passed these initiatives, have the 
power that is granted by the Constitution as it exists today.
  It is nothing more than and nothing less than that.
  Let me assure my colleagues, this is the term limits vote. For those 
of us who believe deeply, as I do, and I know many Members do, that we 
need to limit the terms of the Members of the U.S. House and Senate in 
order to restore what the Founding Fathers really envisioned in the way 
of balancing this Constitution of ours, if you believe as I do that we 
need to end what has become a career orientation attitude on the part 
of Congress, with a tendency to vote more frequently to please special 
interests than is good for the country, and if you believe that we need 
to put permanently into the Constitution a restriction that makes sure 
that no time in the future will we have any situation again where 
Members can serve as chairman of committees for 15 or 20 years and hold 
that kind of power, if you believe as I do that you will bring new 
blood to Congress and refresh this place if we have a renewal every so 
often of new Members with term limits and if you believe as I do that 
while we will lose some experienced men and women who have served well 
and honorably in this Congress but that it is absolutely necessary, if 
we are going to get rational debate into things like balanced budget 
issues and so forth, then you are going to vote for the term limits 
proposal that is here for final passage night that is supported in 
general principle by nearly 80 percent of the American people.
  I would urge a ``yea'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would like to ask my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] if I can gain his attention, please, your proposal before us 
tonight, the final one, is silent on the question of States' 
preemption.
  I presume that that means that there will not be State preemption. 
Does the gentleman agree with that?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  [[Page H3960]] Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the interpretation, given to me by 
Griffin Bell, who is the former attorney general who represents 
Arkansas and Washington State, is that that would be the case. He has 
the cases before the Supreme Court now. He has read the amendment. It 
is his opinion and that of several other legal scholars whom I have 
sought that indeed if my amendment passed there would be no State 
preemption of the existing constitutional provisions.
  Of course, if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that what the States are 
doing now is unconstitutional, then obviously there would be a 
uniformity of 12 years throughout the country written into it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think that is very interesting because 
it leaves it wide open. It might have been more settling for the 
decisions of many of the Members had you put it in one way or the 
other, but just leaving it to be decided. Griffin Bell was an OK 
attorney general. I am not sure where he will go down in the record of 
attorneys general, but at any rate, we see what a slim reed you are 
using here in this instance and for this part of your amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Minge] who has sought the floor constantly.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, term limits are a tough proposition for any 
elected official. Term limit proposals are fundamentally an attack on 
the nature of the political process and politicians. Naturally, we 
resent this. We must, however, look at the positive side of term 
limits.
  They help ensure a participatory, representative, and sensitive 
democracy--one that is inclusive. One of the themes of American 
constitutional history is the drive for inclusiveness in our political 
process and avoidance of the creation of a political elite.
  The original Constitution requires the direct election of 
representatives to Congress.
  The 15th amendment adopted in 1870 guaranteed the right to vote to 
all citizens regardless of their race.
  The 17th amendment adopted in 1913 required the direct election of 
Senators.
  The 19th amendment adopted in 1920 guaranteed the right to vote to 
all citizens regardless of their gender.
  The 22d amendment adopted in 1951 limited the President to two terms.
  The 24th amendment in 1964 prohibited a poll tax to vote.
  And the 26th amendment adopted in 1971 guaranteed the right to vote 
to all citizens at least 18 years of age.
  Each of these proposals had its critics. But all recognized the 
overwhelming value of a participatory democracy.
  Term limits embody a positive view of the American people. There are 
thousands of men and women who can capably represent their State and 
communities in Congress. Term limits encourage broader participation.
  Another goal is to find a balance between an effective Congress--one 
that knows enough to stand up to the executive branch and to the 
bureaucrats--and one that includes the freshness, the openness, the new 
ideas, and the creativity that turnover provides. A well-crafted term 
limit can strike that balance.
  Term limits helps to avoid the natural instinct that each of us has 
that we are indispensable. No one wants to see this great Nation and 
the American experiment fail. But we can smother it with love and 
neglect by our longevity in office and the cult of personality.
  Term limits offset the impact of parochial interests that can 
exercise a distorting influence on our legislative process given the 
continuing role of seniority. Turnover not only gives more people a 
chance to participate, it also reduces the time one Member in a 
leadership position can protect a policy or the interests of one State 
or congressional district. Term limits assure turnover in leadership, 
something that is healthy for any institution.
  In summation, I support a term limit amendment for the broader 
participation and the more democratic process it promises. I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  (Ms. DUNN of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and 
extent her remarks.)
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House 
Joint Resolution 73.
  Mr. Chairman, like many Members of Congress, I campaigned on the 
issue of reform. It is my belief that in order to change government we 
must change the attitudes of those who govern. We need public servants 
who are closely attuned and accountable to their constituents. The 
evidence suggests that, under current law, we have a system that 
ultimately erodes accountability and responsiveness. Conversely, we now 
have the opportunity to reverse the downward trend by limiting the 
terms of our elected officials. This is the first step toward putting 
our legislative system back on track.
  Term limits will help revive the concept of a citizen legislator. 
Officials should serve their communities in a national forum for a 
limited time and then return to private life to live under the laws 
they have created. Term limits provide the necessary turnover to ensure 
that fresh new minds are given a chance to participate in the process. 
We do not need any more lifetime professional politicians.
  In 1992, my State of Washington passed what has become the most 
famous term limit law in the country. Former House Speaker Tom Foley 
sued the voters of Washington, his own State, to overturn the peoples' 
decision to impose term limits. This ``Washington D.C. Knows Best'' 
attitude of entrenched politicians proves that the longer Members serve 
in Congress, the more removed they become from the people who elect 
them. This lack of accountability must be replaced with citizen-
legislators who would bring with them valuable private sector 
experience, knowledge, and motivation.
  Our Nation is endowed with a multitude of bright and talented people. 
While it is true that some very good Members of Congress may be forced 
into early retirement by term limits, those limits are necessary to 
remove the mentality that politics as a career that permeates this 
institution. Creating open seats with term limits will increase 
representation of more women and minorities, and more small business 
operators and educators, making Congress more reflective of the 
American people. Congress must pass this constitutional amendment 
guaranteeing that more Americans have real opportunities to serve the 
public.
  If we fail to garner 290 votes for this amendment, be assured like 
the fight for the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto, we 
will continue to keep the pressure on this body to do the right thing 
and vote again and again until we pass term limits.
  If we do approve this amendment, it will free Congress from the grip 
of entrenched incumbency and prevent the abuses of office that fueled 
the term limits movement in the first place. It will help ensure that 
our Nation's legislative body, when making tough decisions, is beholden 
to the most special interest of all: the citizens of America.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to all term limits. We 
have term limits now, they are called elections.
  Mr. Chairman, this vote is a classic example of a solution in search 
of a problem.
  Let us consider the facts. More than half of the House of 
Representatives was elected in the 1990's. The momentous change of most 
recent election ended 40 continuous years of one-party rule. The 
average length of time a Member of Congress serves is 8\1/2\ Years. 
Because of this fact, it is entirely possible that a 12-year term limit 
would create less competition for congressional seats not more, the 
exact opposite of its intention. Right now, with energetic freshman and 
sophomore classes, this House is more vibrant and more responsive than 
it has been in years.
  For this supposed problem, we must amend the Constitution of this 
Nation?
  I do not minimize or ignore the public frustration and outrage that 
brought us to this debate. It is real and justifiable. We have already 
passed and implemented a great number of significant congressional 
reforms in response to that sentiment. The Speaker of the House can now 
serve for 8 years only. Chairmen may hold their posts for 6 years. 
Congress is now accountable to all the laws of the land. This body is 
leaner than it was last year, and it costs the taxpayers less.
  One of the hallmarks of American democracy is orderly change directed 
by the voters. The voters are powerful, and the Constitution provides 
them regular opportunities to use that power for change.
  Mr. Chairman, we owe our constituents representation of their views. 
But we also owe them our best judgment. This is not a miracle cure. 
This is not the real thing. This is the wrong way to go.
  [[Page H3961]] Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me 2 minutes to speak to this extremely important 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here tonight is the culmination of a 
process that began over 200 years ago, based on that magical document, 
the Constitution of the United States.
  Our Founding Fathers, the Framers of that document, I think 
envisioned exactly what we are doing here this evening. And that is not 
being presumptuous and making a decision on the part of the American 
people for the American people, but being their voice and their vehicle 
to ensure that a very broad proposition, such as whether or not there 
shall be limits on the number of terms that a Member of Congress may 
serve, shall indeed be presented to the American people so that they 
can decide.
  That is what we are doing here this evening, Mr. Chairman. We are not 
making that decision for the American people. What we are doing is 
ensuring the process that has been used over and over again on the 
fundamental issues of our day, representing the Constitution and 
changes thereto, simply to ensure that where there is a broad interest 
on the part of the people to decide an issue that goes to a 
constitutional issue, that that issue shall be indeed heard and there 
will be a vehicle through which the voice of the people can be heard.
  It is for that very limited purpose here this evening, Mr. Chairman, 
that we rise and that I support this amendment, not because I presume 
to speak for the American people but simply because I want the American 
people to have the right to make the decision. That is the very limited 
purpose for which we seek this evening to pass not a constitutional 
amendment but the vehicle through which the people in their State 
legislatures all across this country can indeed make that decision.
  That is precisely the way the system is supposed to operate. Let us 
not tonight stifle that process. Let us open it up and say to the 
American people, you decide this issue. It is that fundamental an 
issue. It is that important. And I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, with utmost respect, I must differ with my 
friend and colleague from Florida, although I know he has championed 
the idea of term limits for a lot of years. I respect him for that. I 
have got to differ on this issue.
  We have had three amendments so far tonight on term limits. I voted 
for every one of them. One was a term limit proposal which would be 
retroactive. The second one was the Inglis 6 year in the House, 12 year 
in the Senate. And the third one was the Van Hilleary amendment which 
was a 12 and 12 but would yield to the states that have already passed 
term limit laws.
  I said this earlier, when I testified for the Van Hilleary bill, that 
the citizens of Arizona, because the Arizona State legislature did 
nothing on this issue, in their frustration took on the initiative 
process and braved the summer heat collecting tens of thousands of 
signatures just to get this issue on the ballot. And they voted for a 6 
and 12, overwhelmingly. Seventy-four percent of Arizonans voted for a 6 
and 12. I, in good conscience, cannot come to this body and say Arizona 
voters, you do not know what you were doing. We know better than you. 
We are the font of all knowledge in this hallowed place.
  I cannot do that here today. It is for that reason, even though I 
support strongly the concept of term limits, I cannot sell Arizona 
voters down the river on this issue by voting for something that is 
silent.
  And if the Supreme Court does, and I think it will, I think most of 
us here know that the Supreme Court will probably overturn the States 
laws, it will become null and void. I cannot in good conscience do that 
to my voters.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, now is the moment of truth for those who say they 
support term limits. Those who voted for any one of the other three 
amendments should step forward now and vote for real term limits, 
because this is certainly a step in the direction that the American 
people want us to take.

                              {time}  2045

  This is, indeed, the opportunity to change the seniority system in 
this Congress. This is the opportunity to create more balance in terms 
of people having the opportunity to run for Congress. It is one that is 
vastly supported by the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard during this debate those who have said our 
Founding Fathers did not want to have term limits, but I do not think 
our Founding Fathers ever contemplated the situation we have today, 
where the vast majority of Members run for far longer terms than they 
ever ran for in the 19th century or the 18th century. Fifty-four years 
is now the new record.
  Before 1895, there was never an instance when more than 20 Members of 
this house had served more than 12 years. It is time to restore this 
citizen legislature. I urge Members to vote for term limits.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues if they can hear that 
sound. That is the sound of the good ship Contract With America 
breaking apart and sinking at sea only 3 months away from port on what 
was supposed to have been a 2-year cruise.
  It is not that the political waters were choppy, it is that the 
passengers began to abandon ship. They watched the mainsail go when the 
balanced budget amendment was killed. They watched the keel come 
asunder when the Senate refused to accept the moratorium on 
regulations. The Speaker has announced the tax bill is a goner, and 
now, and now the rudders are falling off with term limits. The good 
ship Contract With America is sinking at sea.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to stress to my colleagues, we 
have an historic opportunity here tonight. I urge all Members to vote 
``yes'' on final passage of term limits.
  This is the first time this House has been allowed to vote on term 
limits. This is important reform for the House of Representatives. We 
need to pass it. We need to show the American people that we will send 
this back to the States.
  What we do tonight is just saying yes, we will allow the citizens of 
the States of this country to make the final decisions on whether our 
terms should be limited. I urge Members to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rose last week and spoke of three 
things that determine what a democracy is, particularly American 
democracy. Among them was the right to a trial by jury, the right to 
sue, and the absolute right to be able to cast our votes freely and 
without coercion.
  I have heard the word ``absolute'' used many times today. I will say 
this, that restricted access to the ballot box is what this is all 
about. Term limits is a way to tell the American people who they cannot 
vote for. It is an opportunity for those who want to restrict access to 
the ballot box.
  I have a term limit. We all have term limits. The Constitution says 
every 2 years we must present ourselves before the American people, 
before our constituents, to seek their judgment on our performance. It 
could not be shorter.
  The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] made the point earlier 
today, not only is it wrong to restrict access to the ballot, but it is 
dangerous, a fundamental danger to American democracy. I say, turn down 
term limits and vote for democracy in America.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] who has worked so long and hard with the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] and the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Hilleary] on term limits.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would make two points. First, in response to the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], I do not know that democracy 
is in danger due to the fact that all but 19 
 [[Page H3962]] Governors have term limits, and the President of the 
United States is limited to two terms in office. I have not heard any 
hue and cry on this floor about how dangerous ground democracy is on by 
virtue of those term limits.
  The second observation, on the first vote today, the Democratic 
alternative offered by admitted opponents of term limits, there were 81 
Democrats voting in favor of term limits. We need some votes right now 
for final passage. Eighty percent of the American people want term 
limits. Eighty percent of this side is going to vote for term limits.
  We need 80 percent on this side. If we get 80 percent over here, 
particularly those 81 folks who voted for term limits first out today, 
we will pass term limits in a matter of minutes.
  Please, vote for term limits. We have the opportunity here in a 
matter of moments.
  Mr. CONYERS, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. We have 
one speaker remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized 
as the proponent of the amendment, and the gentleman from Florida has 
the right to close.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, Missourians voted in overwhelming 
numbers for term limits. What they voted for is not what is before the 
House, and I have never come to the conclusion that the arbitrary 
limitation of terms is a very good idea. I have long maintained that we 
have a good term limitation procedure in place right now that was 
devised by the Founding Fathers. It's called an election, and one 
occurs every 2 years.
  There is no panacea to solving problems; there are no magic answers; 
and, I am concerned that the arbitrary limitation of terms will create 
as many problems, if not more, than it may by chance resolve.
  There is no panacea to solving problems; there are no magic answers; 
and, I am concerned that the arbitrary limitation of terms will create 
as many problems, if not more, than it may by chance resolve.
  At the same time, I have no interest in blocking the will of the 
people. They do have the right to amend the Constitution on this issue 
if that is their will. I think that the best way to have a reasonable 
national debate on this subject is for Congress itself to not be the 
impediment, to set the wheels in motion for an amendment to the 
Constitution if the people so desire, and thus return the matter to 
state legislatures for debate and ratification or rejection. I am 
voting to do that.
  I believe the substantive debate on this subject has some way to go. 
The debate is not fully joined at this time. I don't believe the issues 
involved, pro and con, have adequately been laid before the people; and 
I believe debate in State legislatures will help heighten the people's 
awareness of what is at stake. For example, I am not certain that the 
arbitrary limitation of terms will result in the positive benefits that 
ardent proponents believe would result. The arbitrary limitation of 
terms could limit the choice of the people and empower an unselected 
bureaucracy to stretch beyond its current reach.
  If the debate were to end right here and the choice devolved purely 
upon the House of Representatives, I would consider my responsibility 
to be different than it is in the current context. My vote is to not be 
an impediment of the people's will. I am voting to send the issue to 
the respective states for further discussion and debate--ratification 
or rejection--whatever the will of the people may be.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the McCollum amendment is the 
last effort to answer the call of the people for term limits. Over 85 
percent of the American people want term limits. People expect us to 
listen to their call.
  Term limits will ensure vitality, provide an infusion of new ideas, 
people who will question the system. We were sent here to serve, but 
not sent here to stay. Republicans and Democrats can join together for 
term limits. Vote for the McCollum bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives can 
make history. I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum], for all the hard work he has done.
  Today, after years of delay and obstruction and partisan politics, we 
will vote on term limits on the floor of this Chamber for an amendment 
that is truly the best one of the four. Today we will finally have that 
chance. I ask all my colleagues to come forward and vote for the 
McCollum amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCollum amendment. Today the 
House of Representatives will make history. Today, after years of 
delay, obstruction, and partisan politics, we will vote on term limits 
on the floor of this chamber for the first time ever. Today we will 
finally have the chance to prove to the American people that their 
elected representatives truly place the interests of the Nation above 
their own.
  As we all know, the American people have consistently voiced strong 
support for a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of their 
elected leaders. Recent polls indicate that support now approaches 80 
percent and encompasses every demographic group in the country. If it 
is our job as legislators to represent the will of the American people, 
this amendment is a way to do that more than almost any other.
  Twenty-two States have already approved term limits, with an average 
level of support of 66 percent. All across the Nation, whenever voters 
have had the opportunity to impose term limits, they have done so. This 
broad-based support shows the American people understand what our 
Founding Fathers believed: that rotation in office is essential to 
preserve a truly representative government, indeed, to preserve a 
citizen legislature.
  We must bring to an end the career politician. We must bring to an 
end a system that looks to most Americans like oligarchy--rule by the 
few for the few--that has come to define business as usual in 
Washington. There is no better way, and perhaps no other way, to do 
this than with term limits.
  Today, the House has a chance to make a change that will give the 
American people the kind of government they not only demand, but 
deserve. It would be ironic, not to mention offensive, to vote against 
the one change the people back home endorse more strongly than almost 
any other. In my State of Florida, the voters have already sent a 
resounding message to the politicians by voting in overwhelming numbers 
for term limits.
  Obviously, not all the Members of this body share the same opinion 
about term limits, which explains why we have four alternative versions 
of the bill before us today. We can vote for whatever bill we like 
best. But the crucial vote is not on which of the four versions you 
like best, it is on final passage. Support whichever substitute you 
want, but band together for the American people and vote for final 
passage.
  Remember the people back home and cast the vote you know will be best 
for them. My colleagues, vote for final passage of House Joint 
Resolution 2--vote for term limits.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a 
strong term limit supporter.
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCollum 
amendment. I do not believe that the Founders ever visualized a system 
of incumbency that produces lifetime politicians here in Congress.
  The uniformity issue I think is extremely important. We can talk 
about whether or not the Supreme Court is going to act on that issue, 
but I think we have to be very careful.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to set a constitutional amendment, it 
would be very unfortunate if we had Members serving in this body, those 
only here for three terms, some here for only four terms, some five, 
some six. It would be very difficult to operate in this body, 
especially if you could try to visualize a system of seniority, I think 
it would be very, very difficult.
  I think that the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], who spoke, 
 [[Page H3963]] tried to visualize some form of political eloquence 
with regard to the sinking of the Contract With America. I would only 
say to the gentleman, I do not believe that he meant to insult 
conservative Democrats who have been supporting most of the issues in 
the Contract With America with regard to his issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that this is our opportunity to 
vote for term limits. It is the last opportunity. It is going to be a 
victory tonight for term limits, regardless of whether we get 290, but 
we certainly need it to get there.
  The fact of the matter is, a few years ago we only had 33 Members, 
three or four years ago, willing to support term limits. Last Congress 
it was 107. Now we are going to go well over 200 on this vote, I am 
sure. It is a movement whose time has come.
  It is time to vote for term limits. Eighty percent or so on our side 
of the aisle are going to vote for term limits. I would urge at least 
50 percent, and hopefully 80 percent, on the other side to do it. This 
is the opportunity for term limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I only have one 
closing speaker.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
  (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. The people have determined who they want to represent them 
and how long. I think we should let the people speak.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day. We have had an 
excellent debate. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], our ranking member on the Constitutional 
Subcommittee, to close the debate for our side.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the 
Republican leadership, because they have outmaneuvered the U.S. term 
limits people. They have gotten where they wanted to be.
  The Committee on the Judiciary reported out a bill which preempted 
State term limits less than 12 years. That caused a great hullabaloo. 
What ensued was not a charade, because charades do not have words that 
are spoken. It was an elaborate grand opera.
  The result is, we are right back just about where the Committee on 
the Judiciary was because, be very clear, this amendment is intended to 
preempt. The gentleman from Arizona who spoke against it on this ground 
was correct.
  It is silent on the question, but the Supreme Court is now dealing 
with it. If it is true the Supreme Court would decide that States have 
the right to set their own, then this will not preempt, but if the 
Supreme Court decides that the States cannot do it on their own, then 
this would preempt the States.
  If Members doubt that, they have to ask why 90 Republicans voted 
against the Hilleary amendment, because the Hilleary amendment differed 
from this one in one particular: It explicitly allowed the States to do 
what they want. The only difference between the McCollum and the 
Hilleary amendments is that the McCollum amendment is intended to 
preempt.
  What does that mean? First of all, all this invocation of public 
opinion gets invalidated because, as has been pointed out, the States, 
20-some-odd States that have voted by referendum for term limits, have 
voted for less than 12 years, so vote for this amendment and you 
probably overrule all those States.
  How are you going to claim to wrap yourself in the mantle of pure 
democracy and public opinion when you will be overruling the States?
  California will get 12 years instead of 6. Massachusetts will get 12 
years instead of 8. Therefore, this amendment cleverly puts it right 
back where it was. It is intended to preempt.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] said that, and the previous 
Speaker said that. They said, and I have heard the gentleman from 
Florida say it, ``This is too important to be left to the States to 
make their own decisions. We have to state it uniformly. This is not 
poor people's income, some trivial subject like that. This is not 
whether or not kids get enough to eat. This is our careers. We
 cannot allow that to be done on a State-by-State basis.''

  There goes the democratic argument, because Members are going to 
overrule 20-some-odd States.
  The leadership, I understand the Speaker is going to close, and that 
is a great day, because the Members of the leadership have been as 
scarce on the floor of this House as it is possible to be. The 
gentleman from Mississippi showed us a list of Members who cosponsored 
a 12-year limit who have been here more than 12 years. They may have 
been here more than 12 years, but they were not on this floor for 12 
seconds today. Not one of them spoke except the gentleman from Florida.
  This side of the aisle is full of Members who are in their 15th and 
20th year, and they are very consistent. In their 15th and 20th years, 
they have been saying for 12 years, ``You have got to get out,'' but 
they do not want to make it effective immediately.
  My friend, the gentleman from Florida, said ``You know, if you are 
here more than 12 years you start to get sour. You start to lose your 
integrity to the process.'' I asked him at what point did this happen?
  I want to know. Maybe they did not tell us this. Maybe the rest of us 
could benefit from the superior moral fiber that has enabled so many on 
this side to resist the corruption that inevitably occurs when you have 
been here 12 years, but they will not tell us how, because all of them 
who have been here more than 12 years skedaddled. They did not want to 
be here. They did not want to be asked ``How can you do this?''
  Let us be very clear. We have an amendment which would preempt the 
States, so we have no democratic argument here, because you are 
overruling every referendum if you vote for this amendment. Every 
referendum will be overruled.
  In fact, the philosophical argument comes down again to this: Yes, 
the majority of the public in a poll says they are for this today, but 
democracy is not permanently enshrining what a majority thinks at any 
one time. Democracy is a system which guarantees to people the right to 
participate, the right to debate, the right to change the minds of 
others, and a majority cannot give away the fundamental democratic 
right of others.
  If some people think that you should not serve more than 12 years, 
and others think you should, let them contest that at the polls. Do not 
rig our basic document and say ``From now on we will not have free and 
open elections, we will from here on forever have elections that 
reflect one particular viewpoint, and we will lock that in.''
  This is the most restrictive amendment ever adopted to the 
Constitution. The Constitution began somewhat restrictively. I do not 
believe we never change it, but almost every other change has gone to 
the expansion of democracy: so black people could vote and women could 
vote and 18-year-olds could vote. This one says that because Congress 
recently fell into disrepute, and because we had during the 1980's a 
large deficit, we will lock in forever under our constitutional system 
a restriction on the right of the voters.
                              {time}  2100

  This is not about the individuals here. No, we are not the important 
ones, although we were important enough for you all to vote for 
preemption because you want to protect your uniformity, but we are not 
the key. The key is the right of the voters.
  Do not enshrine in this Constitution the biggest restriction on the 
untrammeled right of the voters to vote for whomever they want. If some 
voters think that someone should be here for more than 12 years and 
others do not, the place to solve that is in debate and at the ballot 
box. Don't rig that contest now by this particular amendment. I hope 
that you will be consistent to democracy in the broadest sense, that 
you will not overrule all those State referenda and that you will not 
for the first time put the Constitution in reverse and say the result 
of this particular amendment will be less democratic choice and not 
more.
   [[Page H3964]] Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, while holding a few 
seconds for the purpose of asking unanimous consent in a few minutes to 
withdraw the substitute amendment, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to close the 
debate to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I thank my friend the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with great fascination to the 
extraordinarily articulate gentleman from Massachusetts, and I tried to 
remember back to the platonic concern about the ability of one to argue 
any side of a question with equal facility. I looked up the word 
``sophistry''.
  A subtle, tricky, superficially plausible but generally fallacious 
method of reasoning.
  And I realized that speed of language is not the same as wisdom. Let 
me give just a few examples.
  This amendment does not preempt the States. It sets a cap. The 
Supreme Court will decide what that cap means, but the cap is not in 
any way worded to be binding and, in fact, in no way would change any 
of the current relationship of the States to their ability to do what 
they wish to do.
  I can assure the House that if the Supreme Court rules later on this 
year that the Congress need act, that we will visit that question and 
it may well be on a legislative rather than constitutional basis which 
will take 218 and not 290 votes.
  Let me say second that I believe this is a historic vote. I have been 
frankly surprised by our friends on the left. I would have thought, 
having been defeated last fall for the first time in 40 years, that 
paying some attention to the American people would have been useful.
  But I will tell you where I think we are historically. This is not a 
new experience in America. In the late 19th century, a radical idea 
emerged, that Senators should be elected by popular vote, that State 
legislatures should no longer select the Senators. This was a change in 
the Constitution, an effort to take power away from professional 
politicians, the State legislature, and return it to the people.
  It took about 20 years for the idea to permeate Washington. But in 
that 20-year period, it became obvious and even the most entrenched 
old-time political machine came to realize that in fact there was no 
alternative.
  I think term limits is a very similar pattern to the election of U.S. 
Senators. When it first came up, I rejected it. I am troubled by it. I 
think in some ways it is anti-democratic. I think that part of the 
argument is fair. On the other hand, from city
 council to county commission, to school board, to State legislature, 
to governor, to the Congress, everywhere in America the people say they 
are sick of the professional politicians, they are tired of those who 
use the taxpayers' money to stay entrenched, and they want to find a 
device to take power back from the professional political class. They 
say it in New York City, they say it in Los Angeles. They say it in 
Idaho, they say it in Florida. Everywhere in America.

  Now, we are being visited tonight by the fifth grade from Cliffside 
School in Rutherford County, North Carolina. I would bet a great deal 
of money that by the time they are old enough to vote, we will have 
passed term limits, because in the end, the will of the American people 
is sovereign, no matter how much sophistry, and no matter how many 
reservations. The fact is that if over time in State after State in 
county after county the American people say this is an experiment they 
are willing to risk, sooner or later they will get their way.
  One of our good friends the gentleman from Montana got up and said. 
``This is the sound of the Contract dying.'' Let me tell you, my 
friend, tonight 85 percent or more of the Republican Party will vote 
with the American people for term limits. My guess is tonight 60 to 70 
percent of the Democratic party will vote against the American people 
and against term limits. We will go to the country in 1996 with a 
simple pledge. It will be a new version of the contract. We are not 
going to have one of these between now and 1997, but a new version. It 
will say H.R. 1, Term Limits, will be voted on as the first item in the 
new Congress if we are the majority.
  The Democratic Party has it in its power tonight, if half the 
Democrats, only half, vote with 85 percent of the Republicans, term 
limits will pass tonight. It will take deliberate decision of the 
Democratic Party to deny the American people an opportunity, and we are 
not even fully passing it, we just send it to the Senate, then the 
Senate has to send it to the States.
  We are not afraid to allow the American people to have a chance in 
their State legislatures to render judgment. We are not afraid to allow 
the Senate to look at this amendment. But I can promise you, if the 
Democratic Party tonight defeats term limits, the Contract may have 
been postponed in one of its 10 items, but it will be back and when we 
have picked up enough additional seats in 1996, we will pass it as H.R. 
1 in 1997.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 30 seconds 
for the sole purpose of offering a unanimous-consent request in order 
for us to avoid an unnecessary vote tonight. The underlying bill is 
precisely the same as the amendment that I would have offered or would 
be offering here tonight we have been debating on the agreed-upon 
timetable.
  With the agreement with the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts and others on that side of the aisle, I now then 
request unanimous consent to withdraw the substitute amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I take this time just because I had had some questions. 
Previously some of us talked about the gentleman's amendment being one 
more substitute. If he gets unanimous consent, as I hope he will, that 
will be withdrawn as a substitute and we will go immediately to a vote 
on whether or not we adopt his version as the amendment. So there will 
be no more vote about substitutes. The next vote then would occur on 
whether or not we adopt the joint resolution.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentleman is 100 percent correct. We would be going 
to final passage. I do not believe the minority is going to offer a 
motion to recommit. I think we will be going to the next vote, and it 
will be on the final passage of the underlying bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Further reserving the right to object, 
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that at some 
point this body would be made aware, at which point in his 17 years as 
a Congressman did the Speaker decide that he was for a 12-year term 
limit.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I did not know the gentleman was going to 
say that.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Torkildsen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Klug, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 73) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States with respect to the number of terms of office of Members of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives, pursuant to House Resolution 
116, he reported the joint resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
   [[Page H3965]] (By unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was allowed to speak 
out of order).


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, on yesterday evening, I was unavoidably 
detained at the hospital with my wife who gave birth to our first-born 
child.
  I preferred to be there but had I been here, I would have voted 
``aye'' on recorded vote No. 270, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 271, and 
``aye'' on recorded vote No. 272.
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the Record 
at the end of those votes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, so ordered.
  The Chair joins the House in congratulating the gentleman from Utah.
  The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 204, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 277]

                               AYES--227

     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Porter
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Stockman
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     de la Garza
     Frost
     Pomeroy

                              {time}  2133

  Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. STOCKMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  Mr. LONGLEY changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the joint 
resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                             general leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the joint resolution just considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________