[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H417-H420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROPOSING A TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] is recognized for 20 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I come today to speak about a subject that 
will be greatly debated tomorrow on the floor of the House; that is, 
term limits. I am the author of House Joint Resolution 2 which will be 
out here on the floor. It is the term limits amendment for 12 years in 
the U.S. Senate, 12 years in the U.S. House, something that better than 
70 percent of the American people in principle support.
  The issue that will be before us will be a historic debate, the 
second time that we have heard the subject of term limits debated in 
the Congress of the United States. First time was in the 104th 
Congress, 2 years ago when this amendment that I offered received 227 
votes, which is a simple majority, more than a simple majority because 
218 is that, but not enough to reach the required supermajority of 290 
votes to pass a constitutional amendment in the House.
  I am hopeful that when we conclude the debate tomorrow that this 
amendment will receive more than the 227 votes it received last year, 
that we will be further progressing toward the 290 votes that we need 
for the ultimate passage of this amendment, even though I have no 
illusions that we have yet to reach the numbers in the House who 
support term limits sufficient to actually pass this amendment 
tomorrow.
  I am hopeful that the debate will be centered primarily upon the 
divisive issues that normally we debate here; that is, those who favor 
a differing length of term and those who favor no term limits at all.
  There are those who favor 6-year House terms and 12 years in the 
Senate, and I respect that view. There is certainly a difference of 
opinion we can

[[Page H418]]

all share. I personally think that 12 and 12 is far superior. For one 
thing, if we are going to limit the Senate to 12 years and the House to 
6, we are going to wind up giving the Senate more power than the House 
in conference committees and elsewhere, and I do not think that is 
smart. I think we need a balance between the two bodies. We need to 
have a symmetry. There should be the same length of term limits with 
respect to the House as there is with the Senate.
  So that is why I for one think the 12 and 12 is better than a 6 and 
12 or an 8 and 12 limit process.
  I also happen to believe that 6 years is frankly too short in the 
House. I think there needs to be time in grade, if you will, time to 
learn and time to gain knowledge in this very complex government that 
we operate, to learn the subject matters that we have to deal with 
before a Member becomes the chairman of a full committee or ascends to 
a major leadership post in one of the political parties running this 
body. And I do not believe, having been here a few years, that 6 years 
is long enough for a Member in most cases to acquire that kind of 
knowledge and that experience that we would like to see; and to support 
a lesser term than 12 years is to support something that is subject to 
the criticism of those opponents objectively who oppose term limits 
altogether.

                              {time}  1500

  But that is a fair argument to have. Men and women of differing 
persuasions will come to different conclusions about these things, and 
I look forward to that debate.
  What bothers me more than anything else, though, is that there is a 
group working supposedly for term limits out there that may in fact be 
in the process of destroying the effort we are making; may in fact be 
so intent upon getting their way or no other way that in the end they 
gridlock this body and we never reach the goal ultimately of getting to 
term limits.
  The reason I say that is because the tactics they are using are such 
that we are likely to see that instead of 227 votes out here tomorrow, 
there may be a lesser number than 227 for the one and only proposed 
amendment that really has any chance of getting to the 290 needed to 
pass it any time in the foreseeable future. I am referring to an 
organization known as United States Term Limits. I want to talk about 
this group and what it has been doing for a few minutes today so that 
we can focus more tomorrow on the substance of the actual debate over 
term limits itself.
  I, first of all, would like to refer to a column that was written in 
this week's current issue of Newsweek magazine by a very well-liked and 
respected columnist, George F. Will. George Will's column of February 
17, 1997, is too long for me to read in its entirety into the Record, 
but I would like to request that at the end of my remarks today that 
the column in its entirety appear in the Record, Mr. Speaker.
  I do want to quote from one of those:

       United States Term Limits is a bellicose advocate of term 
     limits, and, like fanatics through the ages, it fancies 
     itself the sole legitimate keeper of the flame of moral 
     purity. However, it has actually become the career 
     politician's best friend. That is why it was opponents of 
     term limits who invited a U.S. Term Limits spokesman to 
     testify at recent House hearings on the subject. Opponents 
     understand that U.S. Term Limits' obscurantism, dogmatism and 
     bullying embarrassed the cause.

  Frankly, they do more than embarrass the cause. In their effort to 
have their way or no other way, they have done a lot of damage to the 
cause. They have embarked in the past on a course of attacking term-
limit supporters. In the last Congress they produced television 
commercials and ran them in a number of districts of term-limit 
supporters who supported something other than their preferred version, 
which is the 6-year House limit and the 12-year Senate limit. They took 
the position that if you were willing to compromise to actually pass a 
term-limits amendment, and that meant looking for proposals other than 
the 6-year House limit, then you incurred their wrath. Their view is 
that 12 years in the Senate is fine, but they declare that a greater 
limit than 6 years in the House is worthless and the Congressman who 
votes for a 12-year House limit is hypocritical.
  How inconsistent and reckless that is. It is really quite reckless, 
in fact. They have turned on the prime supporter of 6 years, Mr. Inglis 
of South Carolina, and criticized him. He is part of their Rogue's 
Gallery, now on the Internet, if you want to look it up, and yet he is 
a strong advocate and will probably offer the 6-year House version here 
tomorrow.
  The reason they turned on him is because when the 6-year version came 
up, way short of getting anywhere near the number necessary to pass it, 
he saw the truth of the matter was that the only way we are ever going 
to get term limits in this body was to vote for the 12-year limit. So 
after his version failed, he voted for the 12-year limit.
  Their latest strategy is the passage of misleading ballot 
initiatives. Like the wolf in Red Ridinghood, disguised as the sweet 
old granny, United States Term Limits has deceived voters into 
believing they were instructing their representatives to vote for term 
limits. The deception involves passing initiatives in the States that 
would require legislators to adopt their no-compromise policy on a 6-
year limit. Any legislator who runs afoul of United States Term Limits 
gets the words ``disregarded voter instructions on term limits'' next 
to their name on the ballot in the next election.
  Let us make this crystal clear. This scarlet letter is placed beside 
any Congressman's name, even if, in fact, he voted for several term-
limit amendments, just not solely for United States Term Limits' 6-year 
limit. Not only that, but there are nine separate States that have 
passed this particular initiative, and each of the States has some 
different language in it, which is why we are going to have a series of 
nine votes, in addition to the base bill and Mr. Inglis' and perhaps a 
couple of other amendments out here tomorrow.
  The States of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota have all passed an initiative that 
United States Term Limits sponsored regarding the 6-year-term limit for 
the House and the 12-year for the Senate, but each one has some subtle 
difference, and if you do not follow their instruction precisely, if 
you are a Member of Congress from the particular State in question and 
you do not offer and get an opportunity to vote for precisely the 
language that was put on the ballot in those States and passed, then 
you get this scarlet letter beside your name on the next ballot when 
the next election comes around. It is absolutely designed to gridlock 
this body over the issue of term limits, not help it pass it.
  Therein lies the whole problem. For good reason, many Members do not 
want to appear to be against term limits. So in order to avoid the 
scarlet letter, Members from these States that have passed the 
initiatives, who support term limits in general, will vote against the 
one bill, a 12-year limit in the House and Senate, that has a chance of 
ever passing the House, much less the Senate. Instead of working 
to pass term limits, the United States Term Limits' initiatives are 
actually reducing the number of votes for term limits in the House. How 
ironic that is.

  Here is how this scam works in one particular illustration. In Idaho, 
one of the nine States that passed the initiative, the actual United 
States Term Limits initiative text runs 2,286 words. That is four pages 
of single-type space. However, all that appeared on the ballot were 207 
words, not 2,286. The full text and requirements were available only 
upon special request from the secretary of state or the elections 
office.
  Most importantly, however, is the clever wording of the short title 
and the first thing voters see on the ballot:

       Initiative instructing candidates for State legislature and 
     U.S. Congress to support congressional term limits requires 
     statement indicating nonsupport on ballot.

  That is a very broad statement. I would submit that any citizen who 
supports term limits, and as I said earlier, about 70 percent do, would 
wholeheartedly support, I would support that, and the people of Idaho 
supported that. They voted for it. If United States Term Limits were 
really sincere in their drive for a 6-year limit, then why did they not 
declare right up front in the title of the initiative that it requires 
support for only the 6-year limit?
  Their latest effort to attack limit supporters is destructive not 
only of

[[Page H419]]

the term-limit movement itself, but it sets a dangerous precedent for 
manipulation of the Federal ballot by special interest groups. It does 
not take much imagination to see that the initiative process could be 
manipulated by powerful special interest groups on a whole variety of 
issues to do this sort of destructive thing. It would not be long 
before every special interest group in the country would seize on the 
opportunity to gain the ballot to their political and legislative 
advantage.
  So again I have to ask the question, What is United States Term 
Limits' real objective? Obviously, they are saying they are for term 
limits. They are a nonprofit organization that goes around the country 
beating their chest over this issue.
  They have every right to be for a different term-limits proposal than 
I am or the majority of this body is. They have every right to go out 
and advocate it, and they have a right technically to get on these 
ballots. But what is their effort really going to amount to, and why 
would any rational person who really wants term limits be proceeding in 
this manner that is guaranteed in a suicidal fashion to gridlock this 
body over the whole issue, and instead of leading us to term limits, 
will mean the death of the term-limits movement as a practical matter?
  There is no way anybody can look forward and see when it will ever 
occur if they continue this process, even if they pass initiatives in 
several States that ultimately conform to one methodology and one set 
of language. There is no way anybody could ever see in the far-distant 
future how that is going to lead to the passage of a term limits 
constitutional amendment through Congress or through the several 
States.
  For one thing, only about half the States, actually I think a little 
less than half, have an initiative process. The State legislatures of 
other States will not go along with this. Maybe one or two would, but 
certainly not all. In the most ideal of circumstances, there is no way 
that United States Term Limits can succeed with this suicidal 
methodology. It is absolutely replete with a useless type of process, 
and in addition to that, as I said, is a dangerous type of process.
  Now I would like to comment a little bit about why some of us 
passionately believe in this issue, why we believe term limits is so 
important. The reason I believe term limits is so important is because 
I am concerned that Members of Congress are too concerned about getting 
reelected every time and not enough concerned in each vote that is 
taken with the best interest of the country as a whole. That is a 
simple way of saying they are career oriented. They are worried about 
staying around here, and so they try to please every interest group. 
That is not true of every vote and every Congressman, of course, but 
true of too many; too many votes and too many Congressmen at any given 
time.
  Yes, we have had some turnover in Congress. We have had quite a bit 
in the last couple of years. The problem is those who are really in 
control and run this place are those who are most senior. While there 
is not an absolute seniority system since the Republicans took over 
control of Congress and limited the tenure of 6 years to any committee 
or subcommittee, and limited the tenure of our leadership to any 6- or 
8-year period, there still is, as a practical matter, seniority.
  Those who have been here longest serve in the positions of the most 
power, and that is the way it is going to continue to be. That is the 
way it has been historically in every legislative body, and that is the 
way it will continue to be here. If we do not have term limits, we are 
going to have to chose who do stay, those who choose to stay and be 
reelected, and the vast majority are. A very high percentage are 
reelected or run for reelection every time that run for Congress, and 
they are going to have control of this body. I do not think that is an 
appropriate thing. I think that we need to change that career 
orientation. I think it is much better if we have term limits, and as I 
said, I think 12-year is the best of all.

  In the article I cited earlier by George Will that appears in 
Newsweek, under the last column heading, ``Save Us From the Purists,'' 
where he discusses the folly of U.S. Term Limits at some length, he 
also talks about the rationale for term limits, and I agree with him on 
this. He says, ``Term limits are a simple surgical Madisonian reform. 
By removing careerism, a relatively modern phenomenon as a motivator 
for entering politics and for behavior in office, term limits can 
produce deliberative bodies disposed to think of the next generation 
rather than the next election. This is the argument favored by those 
who favor term limits, not because of hostility toward Congress, but as 
an affectionate measure to restore Congress to its rightful role as the 
first branch of government.''
  Mr. Will goes on to discuss, intelligent people will differ, as I 
have said earlier, about the terms and whether they are this term or 
that term and even whether term limits is a good idea at all. But he 
wonders aloud, with me, over why an organization like U.S. Term Limits, 
supposedly dedicated to the proposition, would go about doing what they 
are doing in such a reckless manner.
  He says, ``U.S. Term Limits is not merely eccentric, but preposterous 
and antithetical to dignified democracy because it insists that three 
House terms is the only permissible option. If U.S. Term Limits'', and 
I am continuing to quote Mr. Will, ``merely espouses this position, it 
could simply be disregarded as a collection of cranks. What makes it 
deeply subversive of the term limits movement is its attempt to enforce 
its three-year House term fetish by using a device that degrades what 
the movement seeks to dignify--the principle of deliberative 
representation.''
  ``Last November'', he goes on to say, ``in 9 States with 30 House 
Members, 19 of them Republicans, whose party platform endorses term 
limits, U.S. Term Limits sponsored successful campaigns to pass 
pernicious initiatives. These stipulate precisely the sort of term 
limits measure for which those States' Members should vote and further 
stipulate that unless those Members vote for them and only for them, 
then when those Members seek reelection, there must appear next to 
their names the statement, ``violated voter instruction on term 
limits.''
  ``More than 70 percent of Americans favor the principle of term 
limits without having fixed, let alone fierce, preferences about 
details. But U.S. Term Limits, tendentiously presenting meretricious 
evidence, baldly and farcically asserts that Americans believe that 
term limits involving 6-year House terms is not worth having. Because 
of U.S. Term Limits' coercive device of instruction, there may have to 
be a dozen votes, which probably will happen, this week on various term 
limits amendments to the Constitution. And U.S. Term Limits' ham-
handedness probably will produce a decline in the votes for the most 
popular proposal: 6 House and two Senate terms, or 12 years, I might 
add, in each body. No measure is yet going to receive the 290 votes or 
67 Senate votes needed to send an amendment to the States for 
ratification debates. However, U.S. Term Limits' rule-or-ruin mischief 
will splinter the voting bloc that last year produced 227 votes for a 
12-years-for-each-chamber amendment.''
  ``The thinking person's reason for supporting term limits is to 
produce something that U.S. Term Limits' instruction of Members mocks: 
Independent judgment. U.S. Term Limits, which thinks of itself as 
serving conservatism, should think again. It should think of that noble 
fountain of conservatism, Edmund Burke. In 1774, having been elected to 
Parliament by Bristol voters, Burke delivered to them an admirably 
austere speech of thanks, in which he rejected the notion that a 
representative should allow ``instructions'' from the voters to obviate 
his independent judgment.

                              {time}  1515

  He said, ``Government and legislation are matters of reason and 
judgment,'' and asked: ``What sort of reason is that in which the 
determination precedes the discussion?''

       In the 1850's some Abolitionists were interested less in 
     effectiveness than in narcissistic moral display, interested 
     less in ending slavery than in parading their purity. The 
     abolition of slavery required someone [Lincoln] who was 
     anathema to fanatical abolitionists. Similarly, restoration 
     of deliberative democracy will require patient people, not 
     USTL's exhibitionists.

  I quoted liberally from Mr. Will, though not his entire text, which 
will

[[Page H420]]

appear, as we said earlier, at the end of these remarks. I think he 
stated it very well.
  Let us hope tomorrow as we debate term limits the debate is civil, 
and that our Members debate the merits of the various proposals. But 
understanding that, if we do parade before this body and the country 
nine separate proposals in addition to the underlying 12 years in the 
House, 12 years in the Senate, House Joint Resolution 2, that we are 
doing that because of this rather bullying tactic of U.S. term limits, 
this self-defeating effort that they are making to try and somehow 
bring attention to this cause.
  It is very obscure to me as to what they think they are going to 
achieve in this process, other than gridlock on the term limits 
movement. I would urge my colleagues all to seriously weigh this when 
they vote tomorrow, and as many as possible who do not feel compelled 
to follow the instructions in those nine States, take the risk and the 
chance of facing up to these bullies, and, in the end, after all is 
said and done, please vote for the passage of the one term limits 
proposal that is rational and has a chance of ultimately prevailing and 
being sent to the States for ratification: 12 years in the House and 12 
years in the Senate.
  I include for the Record the article previously referred to.

                     [From Newsweek, Feb. 17, 1997]

Save Us From the Purists--Some Supporters of Term Limits Have Devised a 
             Tactic at Odds With the Best Reason for Limits

                          (By George F. Will)

       Since the apple incident in Eden, the human race has been 
     disappointing. Hence term limits for Congress may become one 
     of the few exceptions to the rule that when Americans want 
     something, and want it intensely and protractedly, they get 
     it. Only the political class can enact limits, and limits 
     would be unnecessary if that class were susceptible to self-
     restraint.
       That is a structural problem of politics with which 
     supporters of term limits must cope. But the organization 
     U.S. Term Limits is an unnecessary impediment to term limits. 
     As the House votes this week on the issue, consider what 
     happens when a reform movement's bandwagon is boarded by 
     people ignorant of, or indifferent to, the principal 
     rationale for the reform.
       USTL is a bellicose advocate of term limits, and, like 
     fanatics through the ages, it fancies itself the sole 
     legitimate keeper of the flame of moral purity. However, it 
     has actually become the career politician's best friend. That 
     is why it was opponents of term limits who invited a USTL 
     spokesman to testify at recent House hearings on the subject. 
     Opponents understand that USTL's obscurantism, dogmatism and 
     bullying embarrass the cause.
       The primary argument for term limits is not that, absent 
     limits, there will be a permanent class of entrenched 
     incumbents shielded from challengers by advantages of office. 
     Although incumbents who choose to seek re-election still are 
     remarkably safe--91 percent of them won in the turbulence of 
     1994 and 94 percent won in 1996--most members of Congress 
     arrived there in this decade. (This rotation in office has 
     been produced partly by something the nation does not wish to 
     rely on--revulsion arising from scandals and other 
     malfeasance.) And the primary argument for term limits is not 
     that Congress is insufficiently ``responsive'' and hence must 
     be made ``closer to the people.'' Rather, the primary 
     argument is that we need ``constitutional space'' (the phrase 
     is from Harvard's Harvey Mansfield) between representatives 
     and the represented.
       Term limits are a simple, surgical, Madisonian reform. By 
     removing careerism--a relatively modern phenomenon--as a 
     motive for entering politics and for behavior in office, term 
     limits can produce deliberative bodies disposed to think of 
     the next generation rather than the next election. This is 
     the argument favored by those who favor term limits not 
     because of hostility toward Congress, but as an affectionate 
     measure to restore Congress to its rightful role as the First 
     Branch of government. This would put the presidency where it 
     belongs (and usually was during the Republic's first 150 
     years), which is more towards the margin of political life.
       Intelligent people of good will differ about whether term 
     limits are a good idea, and supporters of limits differ 
     concerning the appropriate maximum length of legislative 
     careers. Most supporters consider six House and two Senate 
     terms a temperate solution. It is symmetrical (12 years in 
     each chamber) and allows enough time for professional 
     learning, yet removes the careerism that produces 
     officeholders who make only risk-averse decisions while in 
     office. USTL is not merely eccentric but preposterous and 
     antithetical to dignified democracy because it insists 
     that three House terms is the only permissible option.
       If USTL merely espoused this position, it could simply be 
     disregarded as a collection of cranks. What makes it deeply 
     subversive of the term limits movement is its attempt to 
     enforce its three-House-terms fetish by using a device that 
     degrades what the movement seeks to dignify--the principle of 
     deliberative representation. Last November in nine states 
     with 30 House members (19 of them Republicans, whose party 
     platform endorses term limits) USTL sponsored successful 
     campaigns to pass pernicious initiatives. These stipulate 
     precisely the sort of term limits measures for which those 
     states' members should vote, and further stipulate that 
     unless those members vote for them and only for them, then 
     when those members seek re-election there must appear next to 
     their names on the ballot this statement: ``Violated voter 
     instruction on term limits.''
       More than 70 percent of Americans favor the principle of 
     term limits without having fixed, let along fierce, 
     preferences about details. But USTL, tendentiously presenting 
     meretricious ``evidence,'' baldly and farcically asserts that 
     Americans believe that term limitation involving six House 
     terms is not worth having. Because of USTL's coercive device 
     of ``instruction,'' there may have to be a dozen votes this 
     week on various term limits amendments to the Constitution. 
     And USTL's ham-handedness probably will provide a decline in 
     votes for the most popular proposal--six House and two Senate 
     terms. No measure is yet going to receive the 290 House votes 
     or 67 Senate votes needed to send an amendment to the states 
     for ratification debates. However, USTL's rule-or-ruin 
     mischief will splinter the voting bloc that last year 
     produced 227 votes for a 12-years-for-each-chamber amendment.
       The thinking person's reason for supporting term limits is 
     to produce something that USTL's ``instruction'' of members 
     mocks--independent judgment. USTL, which thinks of itself as 
     serving conservatism, should think again. It should think of 
     that noble fountain of conservatism, Edmund Burke. In 1774, 
     having been elected to Parliament by Bristol voters, Burke 
     delivered to them an admirably austere speech of thanks, in 
     which he rejected the notion that a representative should 
     allow ``instructions'' from voters to obviate his independent 
     judgment. He said ``government and legislation are matters of 
     reason and judgment'' and asked: ``What sort of reason is 
     that in which the determination precedes the discussion?''
       In the 1850s some Abolitionists were interested less in 
     effectiveness than in narcissistic moral display, interested 
     less in ending slavery than in parading their purity. The 
     aboliton of slavery required someone (Lincoln) who was 
     anathema to fanatical abolitionists. Similarly, restoration 
     of deliberative democracy will require patient people, not 
     USTL's exhibitionists.

                          ____________________