[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E783-E784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                                 ______


                               speech of

                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              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:


[[Page E784]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, just last week, after a historic debate, we 
discussed and approved the Personal Responsibility Act, sending a clear 
message: Americans must take responsibility for their own actions.
  Two weeks ago, our debate on common sense legal reform also focused 
on the proposition that individual responsibility is the hallmark of 
our Nation.
  Isn't it ironic that we are now moving to strip Americans of the most 
basic, crucial responsibility of all: The responsibility to remain 
alert, active, and informed; the responsibility to monitor elected 
officials; the responsibility to cast an intelligent vote on election 
day.
  Some of the most well-meaning, thoughtful, and patriotic individuals 
of our day are strongly in support of term limits, inside and outside 
of this body. We are reminded that polls tell us a vast majority of our 
fellow citizens, at least in principle, strongly support term limits.
  It is our responsibility, as guardians of the people's liberties, to 
oppose this undemocratic and self-destructive step backward.
  Adoption of a term limit amendment would enhance, not destroy, the 
public apathy which is already a festering problem. Does anyone in this 
Chamber truly believe that the 62 percent of the American electorate 
who stayed home on election day 1994 would really have been motivated 
to appear at the polls simply by knowing whoever they elected would be 
limited to 12 years in office? Why would any qualified candidate bother 
to run for Congress against any incumbent, if he or she knew perfectly 
well that a wait of a few years would present an open seat? Why would 
any political party or committee, or the news media, bother to research 
and publicize the voting record of any Member, knowing that person 
would be gone within 12 years, no matter what? Who would bother to 
raise money or devote time to opposing any incumbent if we knew they 
would soon be gone?
  Term limits are being proposed to solve a problem that does not 
exist. Over half the current Members of Congress began their service 
here since 1990. During the 8 years that Ronald Reagan was President, 
the House experienced a 60-percent turnover of membership.
  Just this morning--March 29, 1995--the Washington Post pointed out in 
an editorial:

       What term limit supporters want is what is happening 
     without term limits. Of the 435 members of the House, 219--a 
     majority--have been there less than 5 years. Turnover has 
     been especially dramatic in the last two elections: The House 
     class of 1994 included 87 first termers, the class of 1992 
     included 110 . . . All by themselves, without any law 
     compelling them to do so, voters have shaken up Congress a 
     great deal in a very short time.
       The House should vote this week to reject constitutional 
     amendments that would impose term limits,

  The Washington Post editorial continues,

     because they are an unnecessary interference with the freedom 
     of voters to elect whom they want. Term limits would also 
     make Congress a less democratic place. By robbing Congress of 
     the expertise that members who manage to get reelected can 
     develop over many years, term limits would concentrate 
     expertise--and thus, power--in congressional staffs, in the 
     executive branch and in this city's growing cadre of paid 
     lobbyists.

  Those Americans who have chosen to exercise their responsibility in 
voting have been remarkably discriminating. It is an insult to their 
intelligence, and to their patriotism, to contend term limits are the 
only possible way to turn out Representatives who have outlived their 
usefulness.
  Our Nation already has term limits: it's called voting.
  Cokie Roberts is not only one of our Nation's most respected 
journalists, she is also the daughter of two former colleagues of ours. 
She pointed out just prior to the 1992 elections that Congress ``is a 
place to be taken seriously, a place for professionals. That does not 
mean that everyone in Congress should be a lifelong politician, and few 
are * * * But some experienced souls will still be there providing an 
institutional memory, explaining the importance of protecting 
congressional prerogatives in the face of what may be an aggressive
 new administration and assuring freshly elected members that they can 
take principled but unpopular stands and live to fight another day.''

  The supporters of term limits allude to the old days of the citizen 
Congress as if there were a time in our history when voluntary term 
limits were the rule. In reality, the services of such American giants 
as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Thomas Hart Benton 
would have been denied us, at the peak of their intellectual 
capacities, had term limits been in effect in the 1800's. Had they been 
in effect then, the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, which helped awaken 
our Nation's conscience on slavery, would never have taken place 
because Senator Douglas would have been ineligible for reelection.
  In our own century, some of the most outstanding services of Senators 
Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater, of Speaker Sam Rayburn--and the 
Speaker Newt Gingrich--would have been denied us had term limits been 
in effect.
  I do not subscribe to the theory that public service is the only job 
in our society in which experience is bad, not good.
  Some of the criticism of Congress which has led people to support 
term limit proposals is justified. However, term limits is not an 
effective means of addressing these concerns, and may be a case of 
going from the frying pan into the fire. In fact, no problems have ever 
been resolved by taking rights and responsibilities away from the 
people.
  During the recent 40-year domination which the Democrats enjoyed in 
this Chamber, all too often committee chairmen utilized their seniority 
to thwart the will of their colleagues and of the people. The new House 
rules which we adopted this past January--and which I was pleased to 
support--precludes this from happening again. Chairmen are now 
restricted to 6 years in the chairman's seat, no matter how many times 
the voters at home exercise their right to re-elect them. Long overdue 
election reforms and changes in campaign finance rules, can also level 
the playing field, encouraging responsible challenges to incumbent 
Members of Congress. Term limits will not.
  Throughout my many years as a Member of this body, I have never 
experienced an unopposed election. Every 2 years, I have defended the 
positions I had taken, explained my voting record, and accounted to the 
people for my conduct in office. I believe that this was the way our 
Founding Fathers intended Congress to work, and I see nothing wrong 
with this.
  Some supporters of term limits seem to think it would be desirable to 
remove this accountability to the people. George Will, perhaps the most 
notorious spokesperson in favor of term limits, openly states that he 
favors a constitutional distance between the people and Members of 
Congress. The theory seems to be that if we in the Congress do not have 
to worry about reelection, we will do the right thing. Our colleague in 
the other body--Senator McConnell of Kentucky--quite articulately 
points out that: ``The underlying presumption here is that `the right 
thing' must be contrary to the will of the people; and once you realize 
that, you see how vehemently anti-populist and undemocratic term limits 
really are.''
  The importance of the Congress to our Founding Fathers is underscored 
by the fact that it is established by the very first Article of the 
Constitution. The first section of that article defines the Congress; 
the second states that: ``The House of Representatives shall be 
composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the 
several States * * *.'' It is interesting to note that Members of the 
House of Representatives are the only public officials whom the 
Constitution specified, from the very beginning, are to be elected by 
the people.
  Sadly, we know that the term ``people'' had a different meaning in 
1787 than it does now.
  To correct these inequities, our Nation has broadened the definition 
of ``people'' as times and growing awareness demanded. By the 1840's, 
the requirement that all voters be property owners, which was taken for 
granted by our Founding Fathers, was eliminated by law in most of the 
States. By constitutional amendment our Nation extended the vote to 
racial minorities and former slaves in 1870, to women in 1920, to 
residents of the District of Columbia in 1961, to those who cannot 
afford poll taxes in 1964, and to 18-year-olds in 1971. Through the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent legislation, we made our 
ideals a reality by enforcing the extension of the franchise to all 
Americans.
  Today, we are asked, for the first time in our Nation's history, to 
turn the clock back on 208 years of progress. After two centuries of 
expanding the electorate and the rights of our citizens, for the first 
time, an amendment is proposed that would restrict the rights of 
Americans to make a free and open choice regarding their 
representatives, and which would absolve them of the responsibility of 
remaining alert and active.
  Mr. Speaker, term limits is more than just a bad idea. It is a threat 
to our system of government. Let us reject this amendment and get on 
with the business of governing.


                          ____________________