[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H420-H421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       TERM LIMITS: A SOLUTION FOR A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette]. Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Duncan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the greatest respect for 
the Member who just finished speaking and, in fact, respect him about 
as much as anybody in this body, but I do disagree with him on this 
issue. If ever there was a solution for a problem that does not exist, 
it is term limits for Members of Congress.
  First of all, more than half of this House has served just since 
January of 1993, 4 years or less. One-third has served 2 years or less. 
There is greater turnover in elective office today than at almost any 
time in the history of this country.
  Second, unlike Federal judges, bureaucrats, and members of the 
military, the terms of Members of Congress are already limited. We face 
the voters every other year. We are given only a 2-year term in the 
House. If the voters do not like what we are doing, they can easily 
kick us out. Elections are the best term limits ever invented. In fact, 
it is slightly arrogant for someone to say, I am going to limit myself 
only to 6 or 12 or some other number of years in office. That decision 
is only up to the voters, and that is the way it should be.
  Actually, if term limits are needed, they are needed more for 
unelected people than for those who regularly have to be approved by 
the voters already. Many people say the real power lies in the 
bureaucracy anyway.
  Third, term limits are unconstitutional. They were specifically 
considered by our Founding Fathers and specifically rejected, for a 
whole host of good reasons.
  Fourth, term limits are undemocratic, with a small d. They would 
prohibit voters from voting for a candidate who might otherwise be 
their first choice. They would prohibit good people from running for 
office. They would take away freedoms that we have always held dear in 
this Nation.
  Fifth, term limits would increase the power of unelected bureaucrats 
and

[[Page H421]]

lobbyists. They would become the real experts, and very few Members of 
Congress would be able to develop experience and expertise about 
important matters on which they were expected to legislate.
  Six, term limits would hurt small, less populous States. A State like 
California, with 52 Members, would be able to get far more than its 
share. Many smaller States gain at least some protection and some 
benefits if they are represented by Members with some seniority.
  Seventh, term limits would cause even more money to be spent on 
elections. Most people want less money to be spent on election 
campaigns, not more. Now, some incumbents who are doing a good job and 
doing what their constituents want do not have to spend huge amounts to 
be reelected, nor do they have huge amounts spent against them. Term 
limits would cause big money to play an even greater role in elected 
politics.
  Eighth, and perhaps most important of all, we would never consider 
applying term limits to any other field. We would never go to a great 
teacher or doctor or engineer or scientist and say, we know you are 
doing a great job, but even though we cannot prove it, we have this 
feeling that we need new blood every 6 years or 8 years or 12 years or 
whatever, so you have to go do something else. Workers in any other 
field would scream to high heaven if arbitrary time limits were applied 
to them, except possibly after a full career. I would say to anyone 
listening to these words, or who later reads these words: Would you 
want term limits applied to you?
  Ninth, term limits would have cut short the careers of some of our 
greatest legislators. People like Howard Baker, Everett Dirksen, Sam 
Rayburn, Robert Taft, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, George Norris, Robert 
LaFollette, and many, many others have achieved some of their greatest 
service after they would have been term-limited out by the proposals 
that we will vote on tomorrow, and several did not become even well 
known nationally until their later years in office, after they would 
have been forced out of office by the proposals we will vote on 
tomorrow. John Kennedy in this country and Winston Churchill in Great 
Britain would have been term-limited out before gaining national office 
under these proposals.
  Finally, last but certainly not least, term limits are being pushed 
primarily for political reasons, not because they are needed or are 
good public policy. There is a great deal of hypocrisy, demagoguery and 
outright political posturing on this issue. Many elected officials 
pushing term limits are doing so just as a way to gain higher office. 
If an officeholder says he believes in a 6-year term limit, ask him if 
he will leave public office and never run for another public office 
after 6 years. If he really believed in term limits, he would return to 
the private sector and not just use advocacy of term limits as a way to 
gain higher office.
  If you really want to see someone squirm, Mr. Speaker, ask your State 
legislator or any officeholder supporting term limits, will you limit 
yourself to 6 years in public office or are you just promoting this so 
you can run for higher office?
  Mr. Speaker, I have been told that Mexico is the only Nation that 
presently has term limits for its national legislators. I do not think 
many people would hold Mexico up as the best example of good government 
for us to follow.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of this talk, term limits 
solve a problem that does not exist. We should let the voters decide, 
and not just arbitrarily limit their choices.

                          ____________________