[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 60 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E751]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 29, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives this week is 
considering proposed amendments to the Constitution which would 
establish term limits for Members of Congress. I rise today in 
opposition to such a constitutional amendment.
  The question of term limits for Members of Congress is not a new one. 
In fact, the issue has been debated since the time of the Continental 
Congress in 1777.
  I do not support term limits for Members of Congress for a variety of 
reasons. First, the Constitution already provides for a limit on 
Members of Congress, by requiring that Members of the House be elected 
anew every 2 years and Senators every 6 years. Term limits laws only 
serve to disenfranchise voters, by removing their ability to choose an 
incumbent legislator. This represents an arbitrary restriction on a 
fundamental right of our political system--the right to vote.
  Second, term limits laws can have antidemocratic effects. Term limits 
would arbitrarily force many competent and experienced Members out of 
office prematurely, regardless of the wishes of their constituents. 
This reduces the power of officials elected by the people, transferring 
power to appointed officials and other elected parties. Professional 
lobbyists, executive branch bureaucrats, and legislative staffs would 
all gain power if the tenure and experience of elected legislators was 
restricted by a term limits amendment. This would be a perversion of 
representative democracy.
  Third, there is simply no need for artificial term limits. The amount 
of turnover in the House and Senate demonstrates that voters are fully 
capable of making this decision for themselves. More than half of the 
Members of the House of Representatives have served less than three 
terms. More than 40 percent have been in Washington for less than 3 
years. Instead of debating term limits, Congress should be passing a 
meaningful legislation on the subject of campaign finance reform. I 
welcome and look forward to such a bill, which is conspicuously absent 
in the vaunted Contract With America.
  The 1994 elections provided ample evidence once again that the ballot 
is the most useful form of term limitation in our American democracy. 
Voters, as they should, have the final say on whether their elected 
officials can provide their districts the most effective representation 
in Congress amongst the various candidates. Accordingly, I oppose the 
term limits amendments that are before us this week.


                          ____________________