[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             [[Page E795]]

                              TERM LIMITS

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 5, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, April 5, 1995, into the Congressional Record.
                              Term Limits

       In recent years public frustration with the performance of 
     government has been fueled by various scandals and a lack of 
     progress on the budget deficit and other pressing national 
     issues. I share this frustration. Among the many proposals to 
     alleviate this problem are campaign finance reform, tougher 
     ethics laws, restrictions on lobbyists, and term limits for 
     elected officials. The new congressional leadership has 
     chosen to focus solely on term limits.
       Recently the House considered several different versions of 
     a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms for 
     Members of the House and Senate. Some versions included a 12-
     year limit for Representatives and Senators; another imposed 
     a shorter 6-year limit on Representatives. Other options 
     would allow states to impose stricter limits if they so 
     desired. None of the amendments received the necessary \2/3\ 
     vote needed for passage.
       Supporters of term limits contend that they are necessary 
     to assure a ``legislature of citizens'', bringing new blood 
     to Washington and competition to the political process. With 
     term limits, Members might not be tempted to protect their 
     legislative careers at the expense of the country. A 
     completely new membership would restore confidence in 
     Congress and promote confidence in Congress and promote 
     bolder decision-making on Capitol Hill. Although supporters 
     of term limits raise some legitimate concerns, in my view the 
     arguments against term limits are more persuasive.


                                time lag

       Term limits advocates argue that changing the Constitution 
     is necessary to get legislators to tackle the tough issues we 
     face as a nation today. Yet the main version they push would 
     have no effect for almost two decades. Once approved by 
     Congress, the term limits amendment would have to be ratified 
     by the states, and they would have 7 years to do so. If 
     ratified, the amendment would only apply to elections after 
     ratification, which means 12 additional years of service for 
     sitting members. Thus the first year in which someone would 
     actually leave office because of term
      limits could be 19 years from now--the year 2014. This is 
     clearly not an answer to today's problems.


                             accountability

       Elections keep Members accountable. Under term limits, 
     however, a large proportion of the House would be ineligible 
     for reelection, and could completely ignore their 
     constituents, missing votes, staying away from their home 
     districts, and lining up lucrative jobs after they leave 
     Congress. This republic has been well-served since its birth 
     by the belief that accountability in elected officials should 
     be enforced by voters through frequent elections. Why should 
     voters be denied the right to return those who have 
     maintained their public trust? That is why I have also 
     opposed the present constitutional term limits imposed on 
     Presidents. Term limits dilute the accountability of elected 
     officials.


                                 power

       One unintended consequence of term limits is that by 
     eliminating experience in elected office, power would shift 
     to unelected special interest groups, congressional staff, 
     and federal bureaucrats. In our system of government, power 
     does not simply evaporate; it flows to others--to the 
     unelected and unaccountable. It is hard to imagine a greater 
     advantage for a President or the special interests than to 
     purge Congress of experienced legislators who are experts on 
     certain issues, who understand the workings of government, 
     and who remember the problems of the past.


                               experience

       Term limits penalize experience. No other profession does 
     that, and no other country imposes term limits on national 
     legislators. Our country's founders noted that courage by 
     public officials not to pander to the people requires a self-
     confidence and credibility that only experience can bring. 
     Experience gives Members the ability to stand up to powerful 
     special interests. The nation benefits from having Members in 
     Congress who debated the Persian Gulf War, health care 
     reform, Watergate, tax reform, and the savings and loan 
     crisis. Experience helps us avoid mistakes of the past. I am 
     not persuaded that in this day of very complicated problems 
     an inexperienced legislature is better than a more 
     professional legislature.
                      High Congressional Turnover

       Term limits are unnecessary. Elections work. There is 
     already substantial turnover in the membership of Congress. 
     More than 50% of the House has served less than 5 years, and 
     the average length of service is already less than 12 years. 
     Voters have shaken up Congress a great deal in a short amount 
     of time. Congress is improved by the flow of fresh ideas from 
     these new legislators, just as it is improved by the insights 
     of experience. The best solution is to allow voters to 
     determine the proper balance between freshness and 
     experience.


                               Democracy

       Term limits are fundamentally undemocratic. Our founding 
     fathers specifically rejected term limits because they limit 
     the choice of the voter to choose who will represent them. 
     Term limits substitute an arbitrary rule for the independent 
     judgement of voters. In effect, the present electoral system 
     provides strong term limits every two years. A citizen who 
     believes a Member of Congress should not serve more than a 
     few years is free to vote against the incumbent, but a law 
     should not prevent other voters from voting for a particular 
     person. If the problem is poor representation, the solution 
     is campaign finance reform and lobbying restrictions, which 
     would expand democracy and limit special interests instead of 
     limiting the voters' choice.
       In the end, I do not think that term limits would deal with 
     the causes of frustration with Congress that prompt support 
     for term limits in the first place--certainly not until well 
     into the 21st century. They would do nothing to deliver 
     services better, or cut government waste, or solve any of the 
     social problems that desperately need solving. We are again 
     looking for a procedural fix when we really need to start 
     dealing with the substantive issues. Term limits are a 
     barometer of the discontent with government that exists 
     around the country, and all Members should heed the warning.
     

                          ____________________