[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E791-E792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                                 ______


                               speech of

                        HON. HERBERT H. BATEMAN

                              of virginia

                    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. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to outline my thoughts on the 
subject of congressional term limits--a matter included in the Contract 
With America and debated at length by the House. Unfortunately, the 
demands of my committee schedule did not allow me to participate in the 
debate. Belatedly, I offer these comments so that my constituents will 
be fully informed as to my position and vote. This provision of the 
contract should have been and was honored by the debate on the issue 
and the votes on it that were cast. As I have for years consistently 
opposed term limits, I signed the contract because this was all it 
required.
  I continue to oppose congressional term limits. At best, they are an 
ill-conceived quick-fix response to a set of real and perceived 
problems with Congress as an institution. At worst, they represent a 
fundamental change in our representative democracy that abandons more 
than 200 years of American history and threatens to undermine the basic 
right of suffrage. In my view, term limits are a bad idea that were 
properly rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout our history Congress, as an institution, has 
been an object of criticism and some derision. I do not deny the 
legitimacy of much of that criticism and share some of the frustration 
the American people have directed toward this House and the other body. 
The new Republican majority has made sweeping changes in the internal 
operations of this House and I am confident we will continue to make 
steady progress in reforming the Federal Government. Among the ills the 
medicine of term limits purport to cure are incumbent advantage in 
elections, undue influence of lobbyists and big contributors, shoddy 
lawmaking and the ubiquitous professional politician. I submit that 
term limits will do nothing to address these real and perceived 
problems and will, in fact, create a series of headaches that are far 
worse than the disease they are intended to eradicate.
  I would like to briefly touch on each of the items I have just 
mentioned. With regard to incumbent advantage and the influence of 
lobbyists and contributors, let me say plainly that I believe any 
inequity in the status quo is better addressed directly, through 
campaign finance, lobbying and congressional franking reforms, rather 
than the indirect route of congressional term limits. These are the 
real issues and they should be debated.
  The other malady that term limits proponents claim their legislation 
will cure is the so-called professional politician. The argument, as I 
understand it, advances the simplistic notion that much of regulatory 
burdens and social dilemmas we face in the United States today are the 
direct result of the actions of an arrogant, isolated political
 class that exists inside the Capital beltway, selling out the people 
to the special interests in order to perpetuate themselves in public 
office. This is a simply ridiculous proposition. We certainly have too 
much Federal involvement in the everyday life and a great many societal 
problems that have been nurtured by it. But to claim that there is a 
direct causal link between these realities and the absence of a 
limitation on the length of service of Members of Congress presents a 
logical disconnect, and is insupportable on sound public policy 
grounds.

  Mr. Chairman, I agree with our esteemed Judiciary Committee chairman, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and his assessment of this 
argument. We live in the most advanced and complex country in history 
and our public institutions reflect that. Clearly, we can streamline 
and simplify those institutions. We have and should be zealous in 
assuring that the Members of this body are accountable to the people. 
But this does not mean that we must reduce serving as a legislator on 
the national level to the only job in the country that is reserved for 
the inexperienced. Maturity, judgment and experience are attributes 
prized in every profession and should be as well in the Congress. 
Ironically, to deny these assets would greatly diminish the role of 
elected representatives and enhance the power of professional staffs, 
the bureaucracy, and special interest groups.
  There is a larger issue at stake here, the basic right of suffrage 
that is afforded all citizens over the age of 18. Again, I cite the 
distinguished chairman from Illinois in stating that I see little 
difference between being denied the ability to vote for a candidate and 
being told how to cast my vote. Both instances are clear abridgments of 
the right to vote. Term limits are nothing more than a stalking horse 
for a minority attempting to overturn the decision of a majority of the 
voters in a free and fair election.
  Many term limits advocates infer that we are entering a period in our 
life as a nation requiring this dramatic change in our democracy. Let 
me say that I worry about their grasp of history. We face problems, but 
I cannot believe that a system that brought us through the Civil War, 
the Great Depression and two World Wars is suddenly a historical 
anomaly. Now that we stand at some distance from those great cataclysms 
it is easy to forget how hard it was to walk the line between success 
and failure. Were term limits in effect, the Nation would have been 
denied the likes of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, 
Jeannette Rankin, Robert LaFollette, Sam Rayburn, Robert Taft, Everett 
Dirksen, Richard Russell, Arthur Vandenberg, John Stennis, Bob Michel, 
and countless others, each of them towering giants in the annals of 
Congress. To imagine facing the crises of the past without these 
individuals and their colleagues is simply beyond my comprehension.
  [[Page E792]] Most upsetting to me is the implicit assumption of 
term-limits advocates that a career in public service is not only 
unacceptable but unworthy and therefore should be constrained by a 
constitutional prohibition. In 15 years of service in the Senate of 
Virginia and in the 13th year of service in this House, I have devoted 
myself to public service. It has not been a sacrifice, it has been a 
joy because of the satisfaction public service has brought me. There 
surely are those who, knowing my record, may not believe it 
distinguished or significant and that is for them to judge. But no one 
can fairly say it has not been honorable public service or that it was 
based on crass and self-serving motives. Sincere, constructive public 
service is not a curse. It is a blessing.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by reaffirming my support for 
and my belief in the present system of congressional election. I hope 
that term limits are at the zenith of their 15 minutes of fame and will 
soon be seen for what they are, an attempt at a quick fix for complex 
national problems that discards a key pillar of our representative 
democracy. Term limits are a bad idea whose time has come and gone.


                          ____________________