[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      ANOTHER VIEW ON TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Madam Speaker, I rise as one who voted against the term-
limit limitations, because as I have heard the arguments tonight, it is 
not how many terms you have, it is what you do with the term, the term, 
the one term at a time. It is what you do with that term and then it is 
what the voters think that you have done with that term and how they 
feel about that term that determines or should determine whether or not 
you return.
  In the case of my State, West Virginia, we are a small state. We have 
three House Members. Other States have far bigger delegations. I think 
that my State would be, the majority of my State would say, why is it 
that we should be limited as to whether or not we can vote for Robert 
C. Byrd, for instance, and the distinguished service that he has had? 
Why is it that we should be limited in whether or not we can vote for 
other leaders who may rise and show themselves to be able?
  In the case of a small State like West Virginia, with three House 
Members, please remember that when you have term limits what you are 
going to do is to turn this place over to the large States. And so the 
Californias, the Floridas, the Texases will dominate every 2 years who 
it is that becomes chairs and subcommittee chairs and ranking Members.
  So small States have a vested interest in making sure that there is 
some kind of equality here so that we have an equal say as well. There 
are many here who say, term limits, we will really rein in the Members 
on this thing. Nobody ever talks about the staff. Nobody limited the 
staff. Nobody limited the lobbyists. Nobody limited the others that all 
are part of this mix called democracy and called a legislative body.
  So what happens is then the institutional memory now resides entirely 
with those who are truly the paid professionals here. I do not say that 
disparagingly of them, except just to make that observation that those 
people who become the ranking members and subcommittee chairs and the 
chairs will have less and less to say about what actually happens in 
their committees.

                              {time}  2215

  I would also like for people to think for a second, what is it that 
everyone is to be ashamed about for having some kind of experience, 
particularly if that experience has been reinforced every 2 years in 
something wonderful called an election? I refuse to be ashamed for the 
fact that I have developed more experience, and feel that I am a more 
able representative of my constituency, but knowing all the time that 
my constituency decides every 2 years whether or not that is the kind 
of experience they want, or whether I am exercising that properly, or 
in what they think is a proper format.
  Does anyone around here ever walk into a law office, a physician's 
office, or any there office, into a store, and say ``Hey, could I have 
the most junior person around here? I want the one who just got here, 
the one who just got out of medical school, the one who just got their 
certification. Please, I want to skip over the most senior person. I 
don't want to get to somebody who has had even maybe 13 years, of 
course not.''
  What is it that is supposedly bad about experience if the voters are 
truly exercising their control?
 That gets to a very important point, Madam Speaker, that what we are 
talking about here is the frustration that is very real in our country 
about whether or not Congress is responding. That frustration needs to 
be dealt with in campaign finance reform.

  It would be my hope that H.R. 1 would not be a term-limit bill. 
Actually, let us hope there does not need to be a campaign finance 
reform bill in 1997, because I would like to see it out on the floor in 
1995. That, I think, limiting the amounts of money, curbing the money 
chase, making it easier for challengers to take on incumbents, that is 
real term limitation.
  Somebody pointed out that 90 percent of incumbents, 91 percent, were 
reelected last time, but what they did not point out was that so many 
chose not to run because they saw the odds, they read the polls, they 
talked to their constituents. The fact of the matter is that over half 
this Congress, 219 Members, have been here 5 years or less. Almost one-
half has been renewed in just the last two elections, the last 4 years.
  Madam Speaker, I think those are important statistics. The average 
lifespan, political lifespan of a Member of Congress in the House is 
less than 12 years, that very term, that very limitation which many 
would seek to impose.
  Madam Speaker, for all those reasons I happen to think that term 
limits is one of those bumper sticker phrases which sounds good, but 
which in reality does not further our democracy.
  I think our voters, in West Virginia our voters do not need term 
limits. I would point out that in our State, for instance, over half of 
the House of Delegates, on any given election 40 to 50 percent of our 
House of Delegates is changed. Indeed, many members of our State Senate 
this year were changed. Our voters know how to judge people and how to 
limit terms on their own, and that is through a process, a wonderful 
process called an election.

                          ____________________