[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S4083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TERM LIMITS

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate failed to 
invoke cloture on the resolution that would have allowed the States to 
decide whether the Constitution should be amended to impose term limits 
on Congress. I supported invoking cloture and I want to express my 
disappointment that we were not able to limit debate on this important 
issue.
  Mr. President, in 1994, 63 percent of Alaskans who voted cast their 
ballot in favor of congressional term limits. I want to explain why I 
support the resolution and also cite some reservations I have 
concerning this idea.
  As a majority of Alaskan voters believe, term limits may indeed 
provide for the infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives through 
the Halls of Congress. Term limits may also make Congress more 
responsive to its constituents; decrease the possibility of corruption 
that some see as stemming from longevity in office; and enhance the 
role of merit, rather than seniority, in the distribution of power.
  However, term limits unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to 
vote for whom they wish, thereby indiscriminately terminating the 
public service work of both good legislators and bad legislators, 
alike.
  Term limits would remove many of the most competent and experienced 
Members from office prematurely, thereby destroying the so-called 
institutional memory. The only individuals who would retain an 
institutional memory would be professional staff. Term limits may very 
well enhance their ability to shape legislation and become entrenched 
as the permanent bureaucracy of Capitol Hill.

  Similarly, the professional lobbyists in Washington may also find 
their influence with Members of Congress improved, as they are far more 
familiar with the details of issues affecting their industries than new 
Members of Congress.
  Finally, I would note that term limits could well diminish the 
influence of Senators and Congressmen from States with small 
populations, such as Alaska. I am especially concerned that term limits 
in the House will increase the power of States like California, Texas, 
and New York, which have delegations as large as 52 Members as opposed 
to States such as Alaska and Wyoming, each of which only has one 
Representative.
  Despite my reservations, Mr. President, the people of Alaska have 
clearly indicated their preference for term limits and I abide by that 
decision. I would support the constitutional term limit amendment 
because it would establish a uniform term-limit rule which would apply 
to all 50 States.
  Uniformity among States is imperative not only because the Supreme 
Court has ruled that individual States cannot constitutionally limit 
mandated uniformity, but also because States with term limits would be 
placed at a serious disadvantage in the Congress with States that do 
not limit Members' terms.
  A uniform term-limit amendment would place all 50 States on equal 
footing in representing constituents in Congress and that is why I 
support such an amendment. I will therefore vote in favor of the 
constitutional amendment approach to term limits to ensure that 
Alaskans are guaranteed equal representation in the Congress.
  I hope the majority leader will be able to bring this measure back 
before the Senate this year so that we can bring this issue to a final 
vote.

                          ____________________