[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H458-H512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 47 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                               H. Res. 47

       Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 2) 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.
       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) 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. The first reading of the joint 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the joint resolution and shall not exceed two 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     After general debate the joint resolution shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be 
     in order except those specified in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order specified in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, may be considered notwithstanding the adoption of a 
     previous amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. If more than one amendment is adopted, 
     then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative 
     votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case of 
     a tie

[[Page H459]]

     for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only the 
     last amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes 
     shall be considered as finally adopted. The Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the joint resolution to the House with such 
     amendment as may have been finally adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. LaHOOD). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first rule of the 105th Congress. It is not 
an ideal rule, but it is about the best that is possible given the 
current circumstances.
  The Committee on Rules was faced with a situation where there are 
nine States which have passed ballot initiatives requiring Members from 
those States to support a particular version of the term limits 
constitutional amendment specified in the ballot initiative, or else 
they would have to have a special designation next to their names on 
the ballot the next time they run at the next election which would read 
``disregarded voter instructions on term limits.''
  Mr. Speaker, while the constitutionality of these ballot initiatives 
have not yet been settled in the Supreme Court, out of fairness to 
those Members from those States we have to proceed with the 
requirements as they stand today. The nine States are Alaska, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota, 
although I am told that Nevada will have to pass the initiative a 
second time before it is final.
  While the constitutional amendment proposed in the State ballot 
initiatives all call for a limit of three terms in the House and two 
terms in the Senate, none of the versions are identical, and that poses 
a very, very serious problem about finally getting a vote on this 
issue.
  As a result, there may be, for instance, Members from some of those 
nine States who can only vote for the specific version specified in 
their State's ballot initiative and no others. So that takes 50 or 60 
Members away from perhaps the final vote on this issue.
  Last Tuesday I sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, and I announced 
on the floor that any Member wishing to offer an alternative version of 
the term limits constitutional amendment should submit that proposal to 
the Committee on Rules by noon on Monday. In response, a total of 
twenty substitutes were submitted; seven of these were the exact 
versions required by the ballot initiatives in those particular States.
  In order to meet the requirements of the ballot initiatives in the 
seven States which requested Committee on Rules action, all seven of 
those versions required to comply with State ballot initiatives were 
made in order. They are made in order under this rule, each with 10 
minutes of debate, keeping in mind that there are 2 hours of general 
debate on this entire issue before we get into the amendment process.
  Next, since the seven State initiative versions all provide three 
terms for House Members and two terms for Senators, two additional 
amendments were made in order, one by a Democrat and one by a 
Republican to provide other significant alternatives to this House.
  Finally, the Dingell substitute, which was offered in the last 
Congress as the Democratic substitute, is made in order as well.
  If one of these alternatives receives a majority vote, it would 
replace the base text and mean that there never would be a vote on the 
base text unless the base text is included as a substitute. Now, that 
gets a little confusing, but, therefore, what we have done to give 
everybody, all 11 amendments, a fair shot, we have made the McCollum 
base text as a separate amendment. That will be the last vote taken up 
on the floor of all these 11 amendments.
  The rule provides again for 2 hours of general debate and 10-minute 
time limits on all the substitutes except for the Democrat alternative 
and the Republican alternative, the Dingell and McCollum resolutions, 
and they each have 30 minutes. The amendments will be considered under 
a procedure known as the most votes win.
  As Members know, under previous Congresses before the Republican 
majority took over 2 years ago, we had often used a formula of king-of-
the-hill, which I thought was grossly unfair. That meant that one 
amendment might receive 270 votes, yet the last one taken up would 
receive 50 votes less but still gain the majority in the House and it 
would win. I think that was grossly unfair. The House would not really 
be able to work its will under that procedure. So we do not use that 
procedure anymore. So under most votes wins, this means the alternative 
receiving the largest majority in the Committee of the Whole will be 
the version reported back to the House for the final vote.
  In order to expedite the voting process, the rule allows the chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole to cluster votes and to reduce the voting 
time to 5 minutes on the second and subsequent votes in any particular 
series. In order to ensure that the minority has one last chance to 
offer its final alternative, there is a motion to recommit with 
instructions. As in the case of all constitutional amendments, a two-
thirds vote is required for passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of term limits. Numerous polls have 
shown that term limits are supported by the vast majority of the 
American people, and that is why you see these initiatives taking place 
all over the country in the various States. In many areas we have term 
limits now.
  As chairman of the House Committee on Rules, I am already subject to 
a three-term limit as chairman under the rules of the Republican 
Conference, and that is as it should be. The House rules provide that 
the Speaker is subject to a four-term limit. Many Governors are limited 
in the number of terms they can serve. Some are only allowed to serve 
one term. The President of the United States is subject to a two-term 
limit, 8 years.
  It is possible to function under a system of term limits, and that is 
why we have this matter before us today. While there are some of us who 
are just as careful with a nickel as the day we were first elected, I 
have to say there are some that in a desire to be reelected end up 
saying, and this is important, saying ``yes'' to everybody and ``no'' 
to no one, and consequently this is how we got ourselves in this fiscal 
mess that we are in today.
  Philosophically, I do not even support this term limitation. I think 
the term limitation ought to come from the voters, but how do you 
change something when voters say, my Congressman, Barney Frank, is 
great but all the others are lousy.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 
I do not see anything that needs to be changed in that statement.
  Mr. SOLOMON. So to be fair, I think the only way we could ever deal 
with this thing is to have term limits, and that is why I am supporting 
it here today. The House should vote yes on this rule and yes on the 
term limits constitutional amendment that finally survives this winner-
take-all provision.
  Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my dear friend from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], the eternal Marine, for yielding me the 
customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because I believe that the American 
voters, and nobody else, should decide who represents them. For anyone 
who thinks that we do not have term limits, I would remind everybody 
that every 2 years, the entire House of Representatives is up for 
reelection. Every

[[Page H460]]

2 years the American people can decide who they want in and who they 
want out.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 years is far shorter than any of the term limit 
proposals we are going to hear here today. The shortest term limit 
proposed here today is 6 years. That is 4 years longer than the term 
limits built right now into the ballot boxes.
  Proponents of term limits argue that incumbents always win. They say 
the deck is stacked. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Nobody is immune. 
In fact, in the last few elections, our Speaker, the chairman of Ways 
and Means, chairmen of other standing committees, chairmen of 
subcommittees have all been defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years, 75 percent of the Congress has 
turned over. Three out of every four Members who were here 10 years ago 
either lost or retired, and most of those were relatively new Members 
themselves. In other words, Mr. Speaker, most of the people serving 
here have never had the pleasure of serving under my colleague from New 
York's favorite President, Ronald Reagan.
  According to the National Journal, this Congress will have a higher 
percentage of Members serving 3 terms or fewer than any other Congress 
since 1952. More than 54 percent of the Members of this Congress have 
been elected in the last 5 years. The reason for this big turnover, Mr. 
Speaker, is quite simple. We live in a representative democracy. Every 
2 years, the people decide who should represent them and who should 
not.
  No one can tell the American people who they should vote for, and no 
one can tell the American people who they should not vote for, no 
matter how long their Representatives have been here or how well they 
have served. To quote my dear friend Henry Hyde, the Republican 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, ``We need to trust the people.''
  Mr. Speaker, even if some of my colleagues do not trust the people, 
term limits is not the way to do it. Congressional term limits 
strengthen our already powerful Presidency, which will upset the 
constitutional balance of powers. Term limits will result in a Congress 
with less expertise, which is dangerously reliant on special interest 
lobbyists for directions, and term limits could force Members to be 
concerned more with their next job than with serving well in their 
current job.
  In Federalist Paper No. 53, Mr. Speaker, James Madison said that ``A 
few of the Members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by 
frequent reelections be thoroughly masters of the public business.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers thought about term limits and 
decided against them. They felt that fair and frequent elections would 
do more to encourage a healthy democracy than anything else. Mr. 
Speaker, they were right. Term limits are undemocratic. Concerns about 
the openness of the electoral process should not be answered with 
arbitrary term limits.
  If you are concerned with the openness of our electoral process, then 
make it easier for people to run. Level the playing field. Enact 
campaign finance reform. But do not take away the people's right to 
choose their own Representatives.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are going to vote on 11 term limit proposals. 
All but one of these proposals confuses me. I am confused that so many 
of my colleagues are for term limits, of course unless the term limit 
applies to them.
  The only amendment we will hear today that in my opinion is sincere 
on the issue of term limits is Mr. Dingell's amendment. Mr. Dingell, 
despite his long and distinguished career here in the House, is 
offering the only amendment that says we will live by whatever proposal 
passes the House today. His amendment would make term limits apply 
immediately, not 6 or 20 years down the road.
  That is more than I can say for the other amendments. Every single 
one of these 10 amendments say, ``Do what I say, not what I do.'' I for 
one, Mr. Speaker, do not believe you should vote for anything that you 
are not willing to live by yourself.

                              {time}  1045

  I believe that Members who file term limits legislation should not 
wait for the decades it will take to go through the process, but they 
should apply the terms that they advocate to themselves and show the 
voters that they really mean what they say.
  If term limits are good enough for the people who will come after us 
in the House, then they should be good enough for us. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the rule. The American people and nobody else 
should decide who represents them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, did I hear the gentleman say defeat the 
rule?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. 
Goss], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative 
and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY 
[Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
for yielding, and I rise in support of this rule. This is a special 
rule for a special issue. It is fair, it is thorough, it provides for 
ample debate and consideration of a broad array of options on the 
subject of term limits.
  There is no question that when today's proceedings are done that we 
have had an extensive airing of the term limits issue on the floor, 
what we would call true deliberative democracy.
  I commend the chairman and the core group of advocates who have 
worked so hard to make sure that we fulfilled our promise to make term 
limits the first substantive legislative issue to be discussed and 
voted on in this new Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago this body made a historic vote, as mandated 
by the American people, on a constitutional amendment for congressional 
term limits. It was inevitable and appropriate that we would consider 
this issue, given the movement across this Nation, the public opinion.
  Frankly, Congress has fallen way behind the people in the States on 
this issue. By 1995 my own State of Florida and 22 other States had 
adopted State-imposed term limits. But in Congress, despite garnering a 
majority of votes, term limits failed to achieve the constitutionally 
required two-thirds or 290 votes in the 104th Congress.
  Now, even though it failed, we made history in that vote in the 104th 
Congress by having the vote, and we pledged to bring it back to this 
Congress; so here we are.
  The constitutional amendment before us sets a national standard for a 
12-year term limit on Members of Congress, one that supersedes the 
State-by-State approach. As we all know, the Supreme Court has ruled 
that State-imposed term limits on Congress are unconstitutional, 
leaving a constitutional amendment as the only route to address the 
term limits issue.
  Many of us here today favor term limits as a matter of principle, and 
we worry less about whether it is a 6-, 8-, or 12-year restriction and 
about responding to the will of the people, the people we work for, the 
American taxpayers.
  In my own State of Florida, we adopted eight is enough in 1992, and I 
look forward to supporting that approach on the floor today.
  Of course there are clearly some among us who are opposed to any term 
limits as a matter of principle. As they respect my view for the 
principle it represents, I also respect theirs. That is why we have 
votes.
  Unfortunately though there are those who do not see the compromise on 
this issue and who have perhaps unwittingly complicated today's debate. 
As a result of State ballot initiatives, we now have a handful of 
Members that are bound by nine State initiatives requiring them to vote 
only for their own State's version of term limits, all of them 6-year 
limits, but all worded slightly differently or those Members will be 
branded by so-called scarlet letter identification on the ballot. This 
makes for a very interesting mix of amendments today.
  As a result of the panoply of votes we have today, many say we do not 
have the numbers on any one option to pass a constitutional amendment. 
Well, that is certainly a shame if it turns out

[[Page H461]]

to be true since the will of the American people is strong on this 
issue. They want a citizen legislature to do the work of the people and 
then return home to live under the laws that that legislature creates.
  I favor term limits, I have always authored my own term limits 
proposal, and there is one of the amendments today that closely 
parallels it, and I will vote for all serious term limit options that 
are on the docket today. If we fail today, we will keep coming back 
until we get this done so we might just as well support this rule and 
get on with the job.
  I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the outstanding Congressman that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] alluded to.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking minority 
member. I want to say at the outset that, while I am against term 
limits, given the complexity of the situation I think the Committee on 
Rules did a very fair job in structuring this rule. Any opposition that 
was expressed to the rule on our side is philosophical opposition to 
term limits. But we have, I believe, no complaint about the rule.
  The gentleman from New York accommodated the reasonable issues that 
were raised in the Committee on the Judiciary. He accommodated both 
majority and minority Members. The only thing I would express is the 
hope that this rule will be the model for the next 2 years because it 
is an inclusive and fairly structured rule, and I appreciate it.
  I would just note that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
quite honestly, as he always does, indicated that part of the 
motivation; indeed I think the bulk of the motivation for term limits, 
is a sense that the voters can be a bad influence on this place. I 
mean, as the gentleman from New York said, philosophically he is 
elected to impose limits on democracy. He is driven to what he said, 
and this is a very honest and, I think, accurate statement, by the 
sense that during the 1980's, when there were differences, for 
instance, between conservatives who wanted to increase military 
spending and cut taxes and liberals who wanted to increase domestic 
spending, we compromised by doing all of the above with consequent 
negative effects on the deficit. The easiest way for us to resolve our 
difficulties was for each to accommodate the other with the consequent 
exposure of the deficit.
  My colleague correctly points out that the public influence there was 
despite polls that said people did not like the deficit, in fact to 
urge Members to vote for things which had the effect of raising the 
deficit. The popular short-term vote was often a deficit-enhancing 
vote.
  But I would point out that today everybody understands that is not 
true. The public may not instantly get the point of the contradiction 
and from what they are saying. But today public opinion is an 
overwhelming force for bringing that deficit down. I think that 
vindicates the fundamental democratic principle that one does trust the 
voters ultimately to express themselves accurately, and I think the 
voters are now doing that. That is, they helped resolve this 
contradiction. I think the voters have said to us: Balancing the budget 
is more important than a lot of other issues. That was not what they 
were saying in the 1980's.
  So I have to say that I understand the motivation, but it ought to be 
made clear. People who offer term limits have at bottom a desire to 
limit popular influence on the deliberations of this body. The more 
Members who are ineligible to vote for reelection, the less public 
opinion will be affected.
  By the way, one amendment which was offered in committee; we did not 
reoffer it here, but it was overwhelmingly rejected by the advocates of 
term limits, and it makes a point. One Member proposed that the term 
limit be a consecutive term limit but not a lifetime ban--at committee, 
one Member offered an amendment to say that this would not be a 
lifetime ban. It would simply mean that one could not serve a 
consecutive period more than 12 years, but one could leave and come 
back.
  Now that was meant to handle the argument that the problem here is 
seniority and that one way to break the seniority system was with that 
term limit. But, overwhelmingly, Republican Members said, ``No, that is 
not acceptable. You cannot make an exception to the principle. The 
principle is 12 years and you must leave the House of 
Representatives.''
  In other words: ``We don't want you thinking about what the voters 
might do in your case 2 and 4 and 6 and 8 years from now,'' and I think 
that confirms that this is fundamentally meant to be a limitation on 
democratic influence. It is a limitation on the extent to which people 
will be able to influence how their Members vote.
  I do not think Members ought to be slavishly following the latest 
poll. I think Members ought to be willing in many cases to say I know 
public opinion disagrees with this particular vote, but I believe, 
given the values that I was sent here to express, that is a mistake; 
and I think the public will ultimately accept this judgment if I make 
the case.
  But term limits is a way to say, look, after a certain period the 
voters will not pay much attention. People say term limits is to 
increase competitiveness. I believe it would have the opposite effect. 
Members who are interested, citizens interested in running for Congress 
in the fifth and sixth term of a Member of Congress could say, ``But 
why challenge an incumbent? Why not wait until the seat comes open?''
  So I think this is a philosophically flawed proposal which is really 
an expression of frustration.
  When did term limits come up? It came up after the explosion of the 
deficit in the 1980's when people felt the deficit would go up and up 
and up and Members could never be defeated. We now have a situation 
where the deficit has been coming down, and we have an overwhelming 
commitment to get it to zero by the year 2002, that Members here feel 
is a public expression of will. We also have a significant turnover.
  So I hope that we will, when this comes before us, vindicate 
democracy and vote down all of these versions of term limits.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
first to say that, as usual, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] was articulate and interesting. Many of the points were cogent 
and to the point except for one. He talks about the American people are 
in a deficit-reducing mode and therefore the Congress will be too. 
Therein lies the problem, and therein lies the reason why I have to 
support term limits against my own philosophy.
  Just take a look at the President's budget. I was so disheartened 
when that budget was made public last Thursday. Instead of staying on 
this deficit-reducing mode, a glidepath downward, like this, to a 
balanced budget by the year 2002, lo and behold, in the first 4 years 
of the President's projections we are on the down glide, on the 
glidepath which reduces the budget--the deficit each year. Lo and 
behold, we go up in the first 3 years. Then we level off, and in the 
last 2 years, after the President is gone, the budget starts--the 
deficit starts to go back down.
  We know that is not going to happen because it is too tough. If we do 
not make those cuts, if we do not reduce those deficits every single 
year, we are never going to get there. And that is why we have a 
Congress that just will not say--they say yes to everything and no to 
nothing, and we end up with these huge deficits which is literally 
going to bankrupt this Nation and future generations including my four 
grandchildren.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do not have too much time, but I am going 
to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will get an extra minute, if I can.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from 
Massachusetts to yield 1 minute to me.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I was interested to 
hear my friend say that he was going to

[[Page H462]]

vote on this contrary to his philosophy. That is a precedent in his 
case I would urge him to follow more often. I think that would have a 
good effect on the body. But beyond that he made an interesting point. 
His view is that the President, as he sees it now, is less committed to 
budget balancing than Members of Congress. I differ with him factually, 
but let me make a point.
  The President is term limited and we are not. So the gentleman's 
point is that the term limited President is not as committed to 
balancing the budget as the nonterm limited Congress, and I do not 
think that is a great argument from his standpoint for term limits.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], a very, very valuable member of the Committee 
on Rules and a former judge.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise in support 
of this very, very fair rule.
  While some may suggest that we lack the votes to pass a term limits 
amendment, the issue itself is here to stay and is gaining momentum 
across the country. Twenty-three States have passed their own term 
limits initiatives, and I believe an overwhelming majority of Americans 
support them. In my view Congress still needs reform, and one very 
effective way we can bring change to this institution is to prevent the 
continued return to this body and to the other body of career 
politicians.
  Some of my colleagues have argued very articulately against term 
limits, and there are valid arguments on both sides. But I remain 
convinced that limits are not only beneficial, they are essential to 
making Congress more effective, productive and accountable.
  The Congress was meant to be a citizen legislature. The Founding 
Fathers and those that followed after them were laymen, not career 
politicians. Just think of the many benefits that would come from term 
limits: a regular influx of new ideas, fresh motivated Members, a 
Congress closer to the people and the issues facing them out there in 
the real world, a greater emphasis on merit rather than seniority and a 
better chance to guard against legislative gridlock as all Members 
achieve a higher level of political courage knowing that their life's 
work is not here in Washington and that there is life after service 
here.

                              {time}  1100

  I expect this to be a very interesting debate. The mere fact that we 
are having this debate at all after our first attempt in 1995 is 
testimony to just how much Congress has changed in recent years. Under 
this rule, Members will have a chance to consider all of the major 
issues involved in this historic debate, including retroactivity and 
allowing States to set lower limits.
  Mr. Speaker, term limits is a serious endeavor, one that goes to the 
very heart of our goal to end the status quo in Washington. So first, I 
urge my colleagues to listen very carefully to what the American people 
are asking us to do, and then to support this fair rule so that we can 
have honest, full debate on the issue of term limits.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time at this 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler], a very valuable Member of this body and one of 
the real leaders in this effort to implement term limitations.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. While this 
is not the rule those of us on the term limits task force had hoped 
for, it unfortunately is a rule we must have. I am pleased that this 
rule allows a vote on my bill, which calls for 8-year limits on House 
Members and 12-year limits on Senators. I want to thank the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the other members of the Committee on 
Rules for making my amendment in order.
  I will address the specifics of my amendment later when it is 
considered, but I rise now to talk for just a minute about this rule 
and why it is structured the way it is.
  Mr. Speaker, we are preparing to embark on a drawn out, confusing 
debate on a number of term limits amendments. As has been mentioned, 
the reason is an initiative effort in the States by U.S. Term Limits. 
U.S. Term Limits calls their initiative the informed voter law. They 
say all they are doing is informing voters which Members support term 
limits and which do not. It is ironic at best and disingenuous at worst 
that these are called informed voter laws, because voters are anything 
but informed as a result of their efforts.
  Let me read you what appeared on the Maine ballot: ``Do you want 
Maine to require candidates and elected officials to show support for 
term Congressional limits or have their refusal printed on the 
ballot?'' No mention of forcing Members to support only a 6-year limit. 
No mention of forcing Members to vote against any other version of term 
limits.
  Then you have the issue of the ballot designation, or what has been 
called the scarlet letter. Let us say you are from Missouri, a State 
that passed an 8-year limit for Representatives back in 1992. If you 
vote for the 6-year bill as required in the initiative and you also 
vote for my 8-year bill, your voters will be told that you do not 
support term limits on the next ballot.
  Let me make this perfectly clear. A term limit supporter, someone who 
votes for term limits, could be designated a term limits opponent on 
the Federal ballot. Those of us who support term limits may not agree 
completely on the exact language of an amendment, but we all agree that 
U.S. Term Limits' latest strategy is ill-conceived and ill-advised. I 
urge all my colleagues to read George Will's column in this week's 
Newsweek for more insight into this initiative and its ramifications.
  We all hope that the courts will strike down this extremely dangerous 
and misleading manipulation of the Federal ballot. In the meantime, our 
Members must vote today without a definitive legal opinion. That is why 
this rule has been fashioned to give term limit supporters every 
opportunity to avoid the misleading ballot designation. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the materials referred to 
earlier.

                                           STATEWIDE REFERENDUM RESULTS FOR THE ELECTION HELD ON NOV. 5, 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Question              Question Type                                            Question                                          Yes         No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................  Citizen initiative......  Do you want Maine to require candidates and elected officials to show support for     318,119    225,620
                                                 Congressional term limits or have their refusal printed on the ballot?
2A..................  Citizen initiative......  2A: Citizen Initiative: Do you want Maine to ban clearcutting and set other new       175,078        N/A
                                                 logging standards?
2B..................  Competing measure.......  2B: Competing Measure: Do you want the Compact for Maine's Forests to become law      282,620        N/A
                                                 to promote sustainable forest management practices throughout the State?
2C..................  Against A and B.........  2C: Against A and B: Against both the Citizen Initiative and the Competing Measure    139,176        N/A
3...................  Citizen initiative......  Do you want Maine to adopt new campaign finance laws and give public funding to       320,755    250,185
                                                 candidates for state office who agree to spending limits?
4...................  Bond issue..............  Do you favor $3,000,000 bond issue to make capital improvements at state parks and    342,116    234,023
                                                 historic sites?
5...................  Bond issue..............  Do you favor a $16,500,000 bond issue for the following purposes: (1) $2,500,000      352,924    221,542
                                                 to investigate, abate and clean up threats to the public health and the
                                                 environment from hazardous substance discharges; (2) $5,000,000 to protect the
                                                 public health, safety and the environment by providing funds for the cleanup of
                                                 tire stockpiles; and (3) $9,000,000 to protect the State's drinking water
                                                 resources by granting funds to cities and towns for the closure and cleanup of
                                                 their solid waste landfills?
6...................  Bond issue..............  Do you favor a $11,000,000 bond issue to encourage job growth and economic            370,978    202,432
                                                 vitality by providing access to capital for agricultural enterprises and small
                                                 businesses with a significant potential for growth and job creation?
7...................  Constitutional amendment  Do you favor a $10,000,000 bond issue for the following purposes: (1) $8,000,000      360,888    209,300
                                                 to construct water pollution control facilities, providing the state match for
                                                 $10,000,000 in federal funds; and (2) $2,000,000 to address environmental health
                                                 deficiencies in drinking water supplies?
8...................  Constitutional amendment  Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to require that a direct              367,994    187,428
                                                 initiative petition be submitted to local officials earlier than is presently
                                                 required in order to allow 5 working days rather than 2 days for local officials
                                                 to certify the petitions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page H463]]

       Question 1: Citizen Initiative: Do you want Maine to 
     require candidates and elected officials to show support for 
     Congressional term limits or have their refusal printed on 
     the ballot?

                             State of Maine

       ``An Act to Seek Congressional Term Limits''
       Preamble. The People of the State of Maine want to amend 
     the United States Constitution to establish Term Limits on 
     Congress that will ensure representation in Congress by true 
     citizen lawmakers. The President of the United States is 
     limited by the XXII Amendment to two terms in office. 
     Governors in forty (40) states are limited to two terms or 
     less. Voters have established Term Limits for over 2,000 
     state legislators as well as over 17,000 local officials 
     across the country.
       Nevertheless, Congress has ignored our desire for Term 
     Limits not only by proposing excessively long terms for its 
     own members but also by utterly refusing to pass an amendment 
     for genuine congressional term limits. Congress has a clear 
     conflict of interest in proposing a term limits amendment to 
     the United States Constitution. A majority of both 
     Republicans and Democrats in the United States House of 
     Representatives during the 104th Congress voted against a 
     constitutional amendment containing the Term Limits passed by 
     a wide margin of Maine voters.
       The people, not Congress should set Term Limits. We hereby 
     establish as the official position of the Citizens and State 
     of Maine that our elected officials should enact by 
     Constitutional Amendment congressional term limits no longer 
     than three (3) terms in the United States House of 
     Representatives, not longer than two (2) terms in the United 
     States Senate.
       The career politicians dominating Congress have a conflict 
     of interest that prevents Congress from being what the 
     Founders intended, the branch of government closest to the 
     people. The politicians have refused to heed the will of the 
     people for Term Limits; they have voted to dramatically raise 
     their own pay; they have provided lavish million dollar 
     pensions for themselves; and they have granted themselves 
     numerous other privileges at the expense of the people. Most 
     importantly, members of Congress have enriched themselves 
     while running up huge deficits to support their spending. 
     They have put the government nearly $5,000,000,000,000.00 
     (five trillion dollars) in debt, gravely threatening the 
     future of our children and grandchildren.
       The corruption and appearance of corruption brought about 
     by political careerism is destructive to the proper 
     functioning of the first branch of our representative 
     government Congress has grown increasingly distant from the 
     People of the States. The People have the sovereign right and 
     a compelling interest in creating a citizen Congress that 
     will more effectively protect our freedom and prosperity. 
     This interest and right may not effectively be served in any 
     way other than that proposed by this initiative.
       The foresight of our Founders provided the People with a 
     path around congressional self-interest under Article 5 of 
     the Constitution. Pursuant to Article 5, the People may seek 
     a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution when 
     two-thirds of the States (34) apply for such a convention. 
     Amendments proposed by a convention would become part of the 
     Constitution upon the ratification of three-fourths of the 
     states (38). Therefore, the state of Maine, hereby amends its 
     Compiled Laws pursuant to our power under the state 
     constitution.
       We hereby state our intention that this law lead to the 
     adoption of the following Constitutional Amendment:


                  congressional term limits amendment

       Section A. No person shall serve in the office of the 
     United States Representative for more than three terms, but 
     upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held 
     the office of the United States Representative or who then 
     holds the office shall serve for more than two additional 
     terms.
       Section B. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve in 
     the office for more than one additional term.
       Section C. This article shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
     ratification of the legislatures or Conventions of three-
     fourths of the several States.
       Therefore, We the People of the State of Maine, have chosen 
     to amend the Compiled State Laws to create legislation that 
     will inform voters regarding incumbent and non-incumbent 
     federal candidates' support for the above proposed 
     CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT and incumbent and non-
     incumbent state legislators' support for the following 
     proposed application to Congress:
       We, the People and Legislature of the State of Maine, due 
     to our desire to establish term limits on Congress, hereby 
     make application to Congress, pursuant to our power under 
     Article V, to call an Article V Convention.
       Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as 
     follows:
       Sec. 1.21-A MRSA c. 9, sub-c. I-A is enacted to read:


         subchapter i-a--congressional term limits act of 1996

     Sec. 641. Short Title

       This subchapter may be known and cited as the 
     ``Congressional Term Limits Act of 1996.''

     Sec. 642. Definitions

       As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise 
     indicates, the following terms have the following meanings:
       1. Application. ``Application'' means an application to the 
     Congress of the United States to call a convention for the 
     purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States 
     Constitution to limit to 3 terms the service of members of 
     the United States House of Representatives and to 2 terms the 
     service of the United States Senate.
       2. Proposed amendment, ``Proposed amendment'' means the 
     following proposed amendment to the United States 
     Constitution set forth in The Congressional Term Limit Act of 
     1996:


                  congressional term limits amendment

       Section A. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of this amendment no person who has held the 
     office of United States Representative or who then holds the 
     office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       Section B. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve in 
     the office for more than one additional term.
       Section C. This article shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
     ratification of the legislatures or Conventions of three-
     fourths of the several States.

     Sec. 643. Ballot for incumbent Legislator

       1. Notation of violation of voter instruction. Except as 
     provided in subsection 2, the Secretary of State shall print 
     on all primary, general and special election ballots 
     ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS'' adjacent to the 
     name of any Legislator who during the current term of office 
     failed to:
       A. Vote in favor of the application when brought to a vote 
     in any setting in which the Legislator served, including, but 
     not limited to, either legislative body, a committee, a 
     subcommittee or the legislative council;
       B. Second the application if it lacked for a second in any 
     setting in which the Legislator served, including, but not 
     limited to either legislative body, a committee, a 
     subcommittee or the legislative council;
       C. Vote in favor of all votes bringing the application 
     before any setting in which the Legislator served, including, 
     but not limited to either legislative body, a committee, a 
     subcommittee or the legislative council;
       D. Propose, sponsor or otherwise bring to a vote of the 
     full legislative body the application if it otherwise lacked 
     a legislator who so proposed or brought to a vote of the full 
     legislative body the application;
       E. Vote against any attempts to delay, table, rerefer to 
     committee or otherwise prevent a vote by the full legislative 
     body of the application;
       F. Vote in favor of any requests for the yeas and nays on 
     all votes on the application;
       G. Request the yeas and nays on all votes on the 
     application if it otherwise lacked a Legislator who so 
     requested;
       H. Vote against any change, addition, amendment or 
     modification to the application in any setting in which the 
     Legislator served, including, but not limited to either 
     legislative body, a committee, a subcommittee or the 
     legislative council;
       I. Either be present and voting during any consideration of 
     the application in any setting in which the Legislator served 
     including, but not limited to, either legislative body, a 
     committee, a subcommittee or the legislative council, or, if 
     absent during any consideration of the application in any 
     setting in which the Legislator served, including, but not 
     limited to either legislative body, a committee, a 
     subcommittee or the legislative council, be recorded in favor 
     of the application via pairing or other absentee provision;
       J. Vote against any proposed repeal of or amendment to this 
     Act;
       K. Vote against any legislation that would supplement or 
     alter this Act;
       L. Vote in favor of the proposed amendment when it is sent 
     to the states for ratification, in any setting in which the 
     Legislator served, including, but not limited to, either 
     legislative body, a committee, a subcommittee or the 
     legislative council; or
       M. Vote against any amendment to the United States 
     Constitution with longer limits than those specified in the 
     proposed amendment if any such amendment is sent to the 
     states for ratification.
       2. Exceptions. The language ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON 
     TERM LIMITS'' may not be printed adjacent to the name of a 
     Legislator if:
       A. Notwithstanding subsection 1, paragraphs A to K, the 
     State has made application for the purpose of proposing the 
     proposed amendment and that application has not been 
     withdrawn or the proposed amendment has been submitted to the 
     States for ratification;
       B. Notwithstanding subsection 1, paragraphs L and M, the 
     State has ratified the proposed amendment; or
       C. Notwithstanding subsection 1, the proposed amendment has 
     become part of the Constitution of the United States.
       3. Determination. The Secretary of State shall determine 
     whether to print ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM

[[Page H464]]

     LIMITS'' adjacent to the name of a Legislator in accordance 
     with this section no later than the time that nomination 
     petitions are certified. The Secretary of State shall make 
     public this determination at the time that information 
     regarding nomination petition certifications is made 
     available to the public.
       4. Challenge of determination. The determination made by 
     the Secretary of State may be challenged under the same 
     process that exists for challenging petition certification 
     under sections 337 and 356. A challenger or candidate may 
     appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing 
     an action in Superior Court in accordance with the Maine 
     Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80-8. In this action, the 
     Secretary of State shall be responsible for showing clear and 
     convincing evidence to justify the Secretary of State's 
     determination.

     Sec. 644. Ballot for incumbent Governor

       1. Notation of violation of voter instruction. Except as 
     provided in subsection 2, the Secretary of State shall print 
     on all primary, general and special election ballots 
     ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS'' adjacent to the 
     name of any Governor who during the current term of office 
     failed to:
       A. Veto any attempt to amend or repeal this Act; or
       B. Veto any legislation that would supplement, alter or 
     effect this Act in any way.
       2. Exception. The language ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON 
     TERM LIMITS'' may not be printed adjacent to the name of a 
     Governor as required by subsection 1, if the proposed 
     amendment has been submitted to the States for ratification 
     and ratified by this State or the proposed amendment has 
     become part of the United States Constitution.
       3. Determination. The Secretary of State shall determine 
     whether to print ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM 
     LIMITS'' adjacent to the name of a Governor in accordance 
     with this section no later than the time that nomination 
     petitions are certified. The Secretary of State shall make 
     public this determination at the time that information 
     regarding nomination petition certifications is made 
     available to the public.
       4. Challenge of determination. The determination made by 
     the Secretary of State may be challenged under the same 
     process that exists for challenging petition certification 
     under sections 337 and 356. A challenger or candidate may 
     appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing 
     an action in Superior Court in accordance with the Maine 
     Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80-B. In this action, the 
     Secretary of State shall be responsible for showing clear and 
     convincing evidence to justify the Secretary of State's 
     determination.

     Sec. 645. Ballot for incumbent members of Congress

       1. Notation of violation of voter instruction. Except as 
     provided in subsection 2, the Secretary of State shall print 
     on all primary, general and special election ballots 
     ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS'' adjacent to the 
     name of any United States Senator or Representative who 
     during the current term of office;
       A. Failed to vote in favor of the proposed amendment when 
     brought to a vote in any setting in which the congressional 
     member served including, but not limited to, either 
     legislative body, a committee, a subcommittee or a 
     legislative council;
       B. Failed to second the proposed amendment if it lacked for 
     a second before any proceeding of the legislative body 
     including, but no limited to, either legislative body, a 
     committee, a subcommittee or a legislative council;
       C. Failed to propose, sponsor or otherwise bring to a vote 
     of the full legislative body the proposed amendment if it 
     otherwise lacked a congressional member who so proposed;
       D. Failed to vote in favor of all votes bringing the 
     proposed amendment before any committee, subcommittee or in 
     any other setting of the respective house upon which the 
     congressional member served including, but not limited to, 
     either legislative body, a committee, a subcommittee or a 
     legislative council;
       E. In any other settings of the respective house in which 
     the congressional member served, including, but no limited 
     to, either legislative body, a committee, a subcommittee or a 
     legislative council, failed to reject any attempt to delay, 
     table, rerefer to committee or otherwise postpone or prevent 
     a vote by the full legislative body on the proposed 
     amendment;
       F. Failed to vote against any proposed constitutional 
     amendment that would increase term limits beyond those in the 
     proposed amendment regardless of any other actions in 
     support of the proposed amendment;
       G. Sponsored or cosponsored any proposed constitutional 
     amendment or law that would increase term limits beyond those 
     in the proposed amendment;
       H. Failed to vote in favor of any requests for the yeas and 
     nays on all votes on the proposed amendment;
       I. Failed to sign any discharge petition that would cause 
     the proposed amendment to be considered by the full 
     legislative body;
       J. Failed to either be present and voting during any 
     consideration of the proposed amendment in any setting in 
     which the congressional member served including, but not 
     limited to, either legislative body, a committee or 
     subcommittee or, if absent during any consideration of the 
     proposed amendment in any setting in which the congressional 
     member served, including, but not limited to, either 
     legislative body, a committee or subcommittee, be recorded in 
     favor of the proposed amendment; by means of pairing, proxy 
     voting or other absentee provision.
       2. Exception. The language ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON 
     TERM LIMITS'' may not be printed adjacent to the name of any 
     member of Congress as required by subsection 1 if the 
     proposed amendment has been submitted to the states for 
     ratification or has become part of the United States 
     Constitution.
       3. Determination. The Secretary of State shall determine 
     whether to print ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM 
     LIMITS'' adjacent to the name of any member of Congress in 
     accordance with this section no later than the time that 
     nomination petitions are certified. The Secretary of State 
     shall make public this determination at the time that 
     information regarding nomination petition certifications is 
     made available to the public.
       4. Challenge of determination. The determination made by 
     the Secretary of State may be challenged under the same 
     process that exists for challenging petition certification 
     under sections 337 and 356. A challenger or candidate may 
     appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing 
     an action in Superior Court in accordance with the Maine 
     Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80-B. In this action, the 
     Secretary of State shall be responsible for showing clear and 
     convincing evidence to justify the Secretary of State's 
     determination.

     Sec. 646. Pledge to support term limits.

       1. Pledge requirement. Until the proposed amendment becomes 
     part of the United States Constitution, the Secretary of 
     State shall offer to candidates for the Congress of the 
     United States, Governor, the Maine Senate and the Maine House 
     of Representatives the term limits pledge set forth in 
     subsection 3. The Secretary of State shall provide pledge 
     forms to the candidates. The candidates must sign and file 
     with the Secretary of State the pledge forms before the 
     commencement of petitioning for ballot access. Except as 
     provided in subsection 2, for a candidate who refuses to take 
     the term limit pledge, the Secretary of State shall print 
     ``REFUSED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS'' printed adjacent 
     to the candidate's name on every primary, general and special 
     election ballot.
       2. Exception. The language ``REFUSED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT 
     TERM LIMITS'' may not be printed adjacent to the candidate's 
     name on every primary, general and special election ballot 
     when, pursuant to section 643, 644 or 645, the 
     notation ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS'' 
     shall appear adjacent to the candidate's name.
       3. Term limits pledge. The Secretary of State shall offer 
     the following term limits pledge;
       A. For all candidates for the United States Senate and the 
     United States House of Representatives;
       ``I support term limits and pledge to use all my 
     legislative powers to enact the proposed amendments to the 
     United States Constitution set forth in the Congressional 
     Term Limits Act of 1996. If elected, I pledge to act in such 
     a way that the designation ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON 
     TERM LIMITS'' will not appear adjacent to my name.

     ________________
     Signature for Candidate''

       B. For all candidates for Governor:
       ``I support Term Limits and pledge, if elected, to use all 
     my delegated powers to enact the proposed Constitution 
     Amendment set forth in the Congressional Term Limits Act of 
     1996. I pledge to use all my delegated powers to cause the 
     Legislature to make application under the United States 
     Constitution, Article V, to the Congress of the United States 
     as set forth in the Congressional Term Limits Act of 1996. I 
     pledge to veto any attempt to amend or repeal the 
     Congressional Term Limits Act of 1996. I pledge to veto any 
     legislation that would supplement, alter or affect the 
     Congressional Term Limits Act of 1996 in any way.

     ________________
     Signature of Candidate''

       C. For all candidates for the Maine Senate, the Maine House 
     of Representatives:
       ``I support term limits and pledge to use all my 
     legislative powers to cause the Legislature of the State of 
     Maine to make application to the Congress of the United 
     States for a constitutional convention under Article V of the 
     United States Constitution, and to enact the proposed 
     amendment to the United States Constitution set forth in the 
     Congressional Term Limits Act of 1996. If elected, I pledge 
     to act in such a way that the designation ``VIOLATED VOTER 
     INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS'' will not appear adjacent to my 
     name.

     ________________
     Signature of Candidate''

       4. Determination. The Secretary of State shall determine 
     whether to print ``REFUSED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS'' 
     adjacent to the name of candidate in accordance with this 
     section no later than the time that nomination petitions are 
     certified. The Secretary of State shall make public this 
     determination at the time that information regarding 
     nomination petition certifications is made available to the 
     public.

[[Page H465]]

       5. Challenge of determination. The determination made by 
     the Secretary of State may be challenged under the same 
     process that currently exists for challenging petition 
     certification under sections 337 and 356. A challenger or 
     candidate may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State 
     by commencing an action in Superior Court in accordance with 
     the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 30-B. In this 
     action, the Secretary of State shall be responsible for 
     showing clear and convincing evidence to justify the 
     Secretary of State's determination.
       Sec. 2. Legislators directed to make application to 
     Congress. Each member of the Maine Senate and the Maine House 
     of Representatives shall use all of that Legislator's 
     delegated powers to make the following application under the 
     United States Constitution, Article V, to the Congress of the 
     United States:
       ``We, the People and Legislature of the State of Maine, due 
     to our desire to establish term limits on Congress, hereby 
     make application to Congress, pursuant to our power under 
     Article V, to call an Article V Convention.''
       Sec. 3. Governor directed to aid an application and 
     ratification. The Governor shall use all of the Governor's 
     delegated powers to aid the Legislature in making the 
     application specified in Sec. 2 to the Congress of the United 
     States under Article V of the United States Constitution.
       Sec. 4. Congressional delegation directed to propose 
     congressional term limits amendment. Each member of the 
     state's congressional delegation shall use all of that 
     member's delegated powers to propose and vote for the 
     following amendment to the United States Constitution:


                  congressional term limits amendment

       Section A. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of the amendment no person who has held the 
     office of United States Representative or who then holds the 
     office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       Section B. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve in 
     the office for more than one additional term.
       Section C. This article shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
     ratification of the legislatures or Conventions of three-
     fourths of the several States.
       Sec. 5. Jurisdiction. Any legal challenge to this Act shall 
     be filed as an original action before the Supreme Court of 
     this state.
       Sec. 6. Severability. If any portion, clause, or phrase of 
     this initiative is, for any reason, held to be invalid or 
     unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the 
     remaining portions, clauses, and phrases may not be affected, 
     but shall remain in full force and effect.


                           statement of fact

       This bill accomplishes the following:
       1. It requires the Secretary of State to offer to all 
     candidates for the Legislature, Governor and Congress a 
     pledge to support congressional term limits and requires 
     that, if a candidate refuses to sign the pledge, the 
     Secretary of State print adjacent to that candidate's name on 
     the ballot the words ``REFUSED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM 
     LIMITS.''
       2. It requires that the Secretary of State print adjacent 
     to the candidate's name on the ballot the words ``VIOLATED 
     VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS'' if an incumbent candidate 
     for Governor, Congress or Legislature fails to vote in the 
     manner specified in the bill.
       3. It directs the Legislature to make application to 
     Congress calling for a constitutional convention to propose 
     an amendment to the federal constitution to require 
     congressional term limits and directs the Governor to aid in 
     such application. It also directs the State's congressional 
     delegation to work to propose such an amendment to the 
     federal constitution.


                           INTENT AND CONTENT

       This initiated legislation seeks to impose term limits of 3 
     terms (6 years) for the United States House of 
     Representatives and 2 terms (12 years) for the United States 
     Senate in five ways:
       1. It would direct the Main Legislature to apply to the 
     United States Congress to call a constitutional convention, 
     pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, for 
     the purpose of enacting an amendment to the United States 
     Constitution imposing Congressional term limits.
       2. It would direct each member of Maine's Congressional 
     delegation to vote for a constitutional amendment 
     establishing Congressional term limits.
       3. It would require the Secretary of State to print on any 
     election ballot the phrase ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON 
     TERM LIMITS'' next to the name of any member of the Maine 
     Legislature or any Governor who fails to use all of his or 
     her powers to secure passage of an application to the United 
     States Congress for a constitutional convention to establish 
     Congressional term limits.
       4. It would require the Secretary of State to print on any 
     election ballot the phrase ``VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON 
     TERM LIMITS'' next to the name of any member of the Maine 
     Congressional delegation who fails to use all of his or her 
     legislative powers to cause the United States Congress to 
     pass an amendment to the United States Constitution imposing 
     Congressional term limits.
       5. It would require the Secretary of State to print on any 
     election ballot the phrase ``REFUSED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT 
     TERM LIMITS'' next to the name of any candidate for Governor, 
     the Maine Legislature or the United States Congress who fails 
     to sign a form pledging to use all of his or her powers to 
     secure passage of an amendment to the United States 
     Constitution imposing Congressional term limits.
       A ``YES'' vote approves the initiative.
       A ``NO'' vote disapproves the initiative.

                     [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 challenges 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 toward 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 alone 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

[[Page H466]]

     to be a dozen votes this week on various term limits 
     amendments to the Constitution. And USTL's ham-handedness 
     probably will produce 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 
     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.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 7 minutes.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from Massachusetts and 
New York for yielding me this time.
  Let me say that I rise in strong support of the rule, and my friend 
from Massachusetts might not like what I am going to say at the outset 
here, but I suspect he will like what I say a little later.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, maybe I should yield the gentleman 1 minute 
at a time then.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that he will begin 
to enjoy what I have to say as I persevere closer to the 5 minutes. He 
will not like the first minute.
  Let me say that for years many of us tried to get the issue of term 
limits brought to the House floor for debate, and there was an 
inclination by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. 
Brooks of Texas, to keep that measure bottled up in committee. So I 
joined with other opponents of term limits in signing a discharge 
petition to try and get it moved to the House floor because keeping it 
bottled up in committee did in fact really, I believe, circumvent the 
will of the American people and the will of many Members of this 
institution. So that is why I congratulate my party for coming into the 
majority and bringing this issue to a full debate.
  I think that this rule, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] and the Committee on Rules have crafted, does allow for a wide 
range of provisions to be considered, but having said that, I do 
strongly oppose term limits. In fact, I remember, and I would say to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], very vividly when 8 years 
ago last month Ronald Reagan turned over the reins of the Presidency to 
George Bush, and at that time President Reagan said, ``My number one 
priority in leaving Washington will be the repeal of the 22d amendment 
to the Constitution.''
  The 22d amendment to the Constitution was passed by Republicans, 
pushed by Republicans, because of a very high level of frustration over 
the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was continually reelected by 
the American people, and now Democrats and Republicans alike recognize 
that Franklin Roosevelt was in fact one of the great Presidents of this 
century.
  It seems to me that repeal of the 22d amendment should be a top 
priority, and so I just introduced a few minutes ago House Joint 
Resolution 51, which will in fact repeal the 22d Amendment of the 
Constitution, doing what Ronald Reagan said was his top priority upon 
leaving this town. And that, I believe, underscores the very, very 
important reason, following Ronald Reagan's direction here, underscores 
the very important reason for us not to amend the Constitution to 
impose term limits.
  Now, I understand that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], although I did not hear it in his opening remarks, talked 
about the turnover that has taken place over the past several years. It 
is my understanding that during the decade of the 1990's, we have seen 
a turnover of 62 percent of the membership of this institution. New 
ideas are obviously flowing in and they have flowed in based in large 
part on the fact that the American people have, to the shock of many in 
this institution, been perceptive enough to change their 
Representatives in Congress.
  I mentioned a few moments ago the former chairman of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. He is one of the three reasons that I voted 
against term limits last time. Well, there were many more, but among 
the three, and they were Jack Brooks, Dan Rostenkowski, and Tom Foley. 
Those three incumbents, the Speaker, two very powerful committee 
chairmen obviously had all the resources needed to be reelected. And 
they had loads of campaign contributions, the power of incumbency, the 
power of their chairmanships, and yet, while many people argued for 
years and years and years, the voters in those districts would never 
have the intelligence to replace Rostenkowski, Brooks, and Foley. Well, 
the fact of the matter is, in uphill struggles, we had challengers who 
defeated those three people. For the first time since the 1860's a 
sitting Speaker of the House was defeated, and it was done without 
amending the U.S. Constitution.
  So it seems to me that if we look at that fact, and interestingly 
enough, and it saddens me, two of the three victors in that 1994 
election were defeated in the 1996 election. The gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], who defeated Tom Foley, is the only one 
remaining in this institution, so a turnover is taking place there.
  Mr. Speaker, if we look at the fact that a natural turnover has taken 
place, it seems to me that we should be very careful in moving ahead 
with an amendment to the Constitution. So I think that the arguments of 
staff having too much power; we all revere the staff around here, but 
the fact of the matter is, with term limits I think staff would get too 
much power.
  If we look at the fact that many people say that whenever we deal 
with a legislative challenge around here, what we should do is amend 
the U.S. Constitution. I think that that was an inspired document, and 
I think that the Founding Fathers were inspired when they decided not 
to impose term limits on the President of the United States, and they 
were equally inspired when they established three qualifications for 
service in the U.S. House of Representatives: 25 years of age, an 
American citizen, and a resident of the State one hopes to represent. 
We should allow the people to work their will in making the kind of 
decision that is better for them in their representation here.
  So I support the rule, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
rule, but I will vote no on all of the provisions that call for 
imposing constraints on the voters of this Nation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his kindness, and certainly to the ranking member on 
the Committee on the Judiciary for the hard work, and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for the generosity of spirit in his beliefs 
that the American people speak every 2 years, and that is our term 
limits. Chairman Hyde was generous in allowing this debate to come to 
the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this rule, and quite to 
the contrary, I am saddened by the fact that we could not find it in 
the minds and hearts of the Committee on Rules to have an open rule on 
this so-called very important issue.
  Interestingly enough, I might add that when I go home to the 
district,

[[Page H467]]

and as I have spoken to many of my colleagues, rarely do I hear as a 
biting issue of the day term limits. Questions arise every day about 
education and the environment; they arise about our ability to be civil 
and to work in a bipartisan spirit to emphasize the importance of a 
budget that carries us forward, firm, balanced, but yet fair to all of 
the American people; sometimes talks about tax relief and reforming the 
welfare reform to be just in its treatment of all of those who are 
inside the boundaries of the United States of America. I hear issues 
about social justice and women's rights, but never this question called 
term limits.
  So I am saddened to be able to say to the American people that the 
first legislative item that comes before this body is really bound in 
political gimmickry. Interestingly enough, more than 54 percent of the 
Members of the House in the 105th Congress have been elected in the 
last 5 years. I might imagine that over a number of years in the 
future, we will find quite a bit of turnover. In fact, we are finding 
younger and younger ranking members and chairmen of committees. This is 
good, this is energy, this is how the people speak. They have spoken in 
the House of Representatives and, yes, they have spoken in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Yes, I realize that nine States, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, 
Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota have passed the so-
called scarlet letter initiatives. So be it, their people have spoken.

                              {time}  1115

  How unfortunate, however, that in passing such an initiative they 
would label their Members by the label on the ballot that says, this 
particular person disregarded our voter instruction on term limits. 
They do not talk about how the Member voted on education and the 
environment, how the Member will address the national defense or crime. 
They are concerned and they want to label someone on that basis.
  My response? So be it; the people have spoken. But just because of 
those nine States, I do not believe that we have any place in the U.S. 
Congress to assess and to deny the American people their right to elect 
or unelect their Representative every 2 years. The Founding Fathers--
and as I always say, no mothers were present, although Abigail Adams 
said to John Adams, ``Don't forget the ladies,''--framed the 
Constitution to allow those who participate in this process to elect 
Members of the House of Representatives every 2 years, and those in the 
U.S. Senate every 6 years.
  Why then are we stalling around this issue that already has an answer 
in the American public's mind: that is, their vote every 2 years. They 
have voted. In 1994 and 1996 they let their voices be heard, changing 
the majority in 1994 and emphasizing a bipartisan approach in 1996.
  I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not see fit to add 
the two amendments that I proposed, I think pure amendments. 
Interestingly enough, out of the 11 amendments, only 2 come from the 
Democratic Party. I would say that if Members are serious about term 
limits, they would have supported the term limit amendment that I had, 
that said, leave it to the States.
  If the States want to put no years of limitation, 20 years, 30 years, 
or 5 years, then if Members believe in the people speaking, why not 
have allowed for us to vote on an amendment that says the States can 
choose any sort of term limits that they desire? Would it have been 
disruptive? Nothing is disruptive when the people speak. But yet that 
was not received or allowed to be debated on the floor of the House.
  I wonder about the seriousness of this issue. If Members think the 
people should speak back in Florida or Texas or California, then allow 
those people to design for themselves how long they want their 
legislators to be in the U.S. Congress.
  Then I might add that in order to be even closer to the people, I 
added an amendment or offered an amendment that we should do it by 
convention. What does that mean? That is a procedure in the U.S. 
Congress or Constitution that allows for conventions to be held in 
States by delegates, people who would then vote for term limits or not 
for term limits.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fraud on the American people. We can vote for 
our elected officials and the Congress every 2 years. Let us uphold the 
Constitution, Mr. Speaker. Let us do the right thing.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in one of the reviews of the 
various amendments that the amendment that is in order that I will be 
presenting has been inadvertently mistaken in its terms. That review 
mistakenly suggested that my amendment would limit the House Members to 
3 terms, or 6 years for Members of the House.
  This is an error. In fact my amendment, like most others, sets a 
limit of 6 terms or 12 years for the House. My amendment is identical 
to the McCollum substitute, except for the fact that it allows States 
to set a shorter limit if they desire than those in the underlying 
resolution. It does nothing else. It is identical, except for the fact 
it allows the States an option to go lower.
  For those reviews that have suggested otherwise, they are in error. 
Today's Congressional Quarterly review is accurate in its description.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and oppose the underlying bill, 
without the amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] was 
correct in his analysis of the substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 47 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint 
resolution, House Joint Resolution 2.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Jones] to assume the Chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1120


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) 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, 
with Mr. Jones (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today for the second time in its history the House of 
Representatives will debate and vote on the issue of limiting the terms 
of Members of Congress. The first debate and vote on term limits 
occurred less than 2 years ago, in March 1995.
  At that time, although a majority of the Members of the House voted 
in favor of the proposed amendment to the Constitution limiting the 
terms of Members of the House and Senate, the vote fell short of the 
two-thirds majority required for proposing constitutional amendments 
under article V of our Constitution.
  Today we renew the debate and attempt once more to give the 
legislatures of the States an opportunity to address this important 
issue. Since the House considered this issue in 1995, it has become 
clear beyond any doubt that amending the U.S. Constitution is the only 
means of enacting term limits for Members of Congress. The Supreme 
Court has struck down State-enacted measures to limit congressional 
terms, and made clear that nothing short of an amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution will be successful in establishing term limits.

[[Page H468]]

  Some advocates of term limits have again focused their efforts on the 
State level. This last election, the voters of nine States adopted 
initiatives to require their Federal representatives to give their 
exclusive support to a 6-year term limit in the House and a 12-year 
term limit in the Senate, or face a notation next to their name at the 
next election that the representative disregarded voter instructions on 
term limits.
  Time and experience will demonstrate whether this strategy is 
effective in advancing the term limits cause. While these initiatives 
have been criticized on various grounds, the Members of this House 
should neither scorn nor ignore these expressions of the will of the 
American people. The continuing grass roots effort in support of term 
limits shows that this is an issue that will not quietly fade away. In 
State after State, the American people have spoken directly and 
unequivocally in favor of term limits. That is why we are here today.
  It is clear that the voters want a significant change in the 
structure of the Congress. They want representation, which is both more 
deliberative and more responsive to the interests of the Nation. In 
1776, in his Thoughts on Government, John Adams wrote that ``A 
representative assembly should be in miniature an exact portrait of the 
people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them.''
  This concept of representation is at the heart of the movement for 
term limits. The American people want representatives who think, feel, 
reason, and act like the American people. Does the current system 
produce a Congress that thinks, feels, reasons, and acts like the 
American people, or does it produce a Congress that in many respects is 
insulated and isolated from the people?
  The American people are convinced that the current system does not 
produce the kind of representation that meets the standard articulated 
by Adams. The people are convinced that a limitation on the terms of 
Members of Congress is necessary to create an environment in which 
those they elect and send to Congress will continue to think and feel 
as the American people think and feel, and to reason and act as the 
American people reason and act.
  Congress has become too much like a permanent class of professional 
legislators who use the powers of the Federal Government to perpetuate 
their own careers. There are many incentives which combine to turn 
Members of Congress into career legislators. Term limits will break the 
power of entrenched incumbency. It will give us representatives who put 
serving the interests of the people and advancing the good of the 
Nation ahead of perpetuating their own legislative careers. With term 
limits, Members of Congress will come to Washington with their eyes 
firmly set on the goal of working for the good of the Nation, rather 
than on the objective of permanently maintaining themselves in office.
  Some argue that term limits will undermine effective and responsible 
government, that term limits in effect will turn the Congress over to a 
gang of amateurs.
  I believe that these critics misunderstand the true meaning of 
representation in a democracy such as ours. Their arguments are 
eloquently refuted by Daniel Boorstin, historian and former librarian 
of Congress, in an essay entitled ``The Amateur Spirit and Its 
Enemies.''

       The true leader is an amateur in the proper, original sense 
     of the word. The amateur, from the Latin word for love, does 
     something for the love of it. He pursues his enterprise not 
     for money, not to please the crowd, not for professional 
     prestige or for assured promotion and retirement at the end, 
     but because he loves it.
       Aristocracies are governed by people born to govern, 
     totalitarian societies by people who make ruling their 
     profession, but our representative government must be led by 
     people never born to govern, temporarily drawn from the 
     community and sooner or later sent back home.

  Mr. Boorstin goes on to conclude,

       The more complex and gigantic our government, the more 
     essential that the layman's point of view have eloquent 
     voices. The amateur spirit is a distinctive virtue of 
     democracy. Every year, as professions and bureaucracies 
     increase in power, it becomes more difficult, yet more 
     urgent, to keep that spirit alive.
  By enacting term limits, we will be doing our part to keep alive this 
distinctive virtue of democracy. We will help make certain that those 
who come to Washington as representatives of the people will think, 
feel, reason, and act like the people, and that Congress is, in the 
words of Adams, ``a portrait of the people at large.''
  That is what the people of this country want. That is the kind of 
system they yearn for. That is the kind of system they deserve.
  As Members of this House, it is our responsibility to listen to the 
American people. This is their government. They pay the taxes. They 
fight the wars. How can we in good conscience turn a deaf ear to their 
demand for term limits? How can we ignore the unequivocal message that 
comes to us from all across this great land?
  How can we stand in the way of the change that overwhelming 
majorities have supported in State after State?
  The issue before this House today is this: Will we or will we not 
listen to the people of the United States?
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the people and to support the 
constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, one of our more 
distinguished members on the Committee on the Judiciary, a future 
chairperson.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for his persistent defending of the 
Constitution. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and 
his remarks on the value of this document that now has served this 
Nation for centuries as we move into the most highly cited new century, 
the 21st century.
  I happen to be from the thinking of the sacredness and preciousness 
of the document, albeit that I could argue now, standing in the well, 
that I and those who come from the representative community that has a 
racial definition was not recognized as a full human being by the 
Constitution in its makings. I then would probably be in good standing 
to reject this document called the Constitution, and say that it did 
not protect me in the first place.
  But I stand now in the well of the House as we all do, as an 
American, having great confidence in the understanding and intellect 
and the appreciation that the American people have for the 
Constitution.

                              {time}  1130

  I even cite quite frequently the Declaration of Independence that 
says, in part, we all are created equal with certain inalienable rights 
of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  I noted earlier that I was disappointed that although the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], raised and the 
Democrats raised the amendments that I thought would bring this matter 
closer to the people, it was rejected by the majority and so my 
amendments dealing with letting the States do it, pure States decision, 
no matter what limit they would have, was rejected and also to allow 
the people in a convention to vote on it was rejected.
  But now we have 11 amendments and a term limits amendment on the 
floor of the House, and it is characterized as allowing the people to 
speak.
  I would ask the question of the 11 amendments and the term amendment, 
whether we could ever get any sort of consensus on any of them. That 
means the people will not speak because we have provided so much, we 
have had so many limitations. We have got anything from 6 to 12 years 
to eliminating everyone in the U.S. Congress. And I know there are some 
who would look this evening on the 6:00 news and say, great, they have 
passed an amendment that would have everyone leaving the floor of the 
House and the Senate right now. They are termed out.
  I know, however, the body of the American people are wiser, far more 
sensible and far more appreciative of this democratic process than 
that. So in actuality, we have a mockery here today. None of these 
amendments would garner the majority of support of the American people. 
There is no documentation, no data. We have 50 States. There are only 
nine States that have put in provisions that have suggested they want 
to have term limits.

[[Page H469]]

  What do term limits do? They take away the voice of the people. You 
take away the history and the understanding of the process. You take 
away the wisdom that is garnered by working and understanding the 
issues. You leave it to those who have no stake in the democratic 
process.
  I respect individuals who are in the hierarchy of the Federal 
Government who are unelected. I know they are public servants as well, 
but there is no affirmation year after year of them by the American 
public. So if you limit those who are then voted upon, those who are 
pro-life, those who are pro-choice, they lose their voice. Those who 
want more of the environmental concerns and consideration versus those 
who heighten the property ownership issues lose their voice. Those who 
are proponents of social justice and want to rid us of the death 
penalty versus those who understand that victims have rights lose their 
voice.
  Term limits is, again, a frivolity. It is a blight on this democratic 
process. It is to reject that we have already had 54 percent of those 
in the House of Representatives alone change out.
  Sadly, though we have not come here to separate us, I always sit 
sometimes quietly and wonder, as this House becomes more diverse, 
African Americans and Hispanics and Asians and women, I would hate to 
think that there is a silent commentary, now is the time to have term 
limits. Now is the time to throw the bums out.
  I want accountability. I want reasonable campaign finance reform. I 
want ethics in government. I want a fair utilization of your dollar. I 
want a recognition that we are here to do the people's business. But I 
am saddened that we are taking the hours of the people's business to 
talk about term limits when each of us have within our power and the 
people have to say it to us, you are termed out. We can personally say 
it. Some Members have. I applaud them. That is their personal choice. 
And others have responded to the call of the public.
  I would not have taken this amount of time, Mr. Chairman, had it not 
been a serious issue for me. For whenever we tamper with the 
Constitution, a document that has been admired by the world public as a 
hearty document, as a document of justice, I am concerned with the 
potential quagmire of limiting the people's right to select one person 
who has been good for them, who voices their concerns, who captures the 
history of this Nation, who are leaders like a Sam Rayburn or a Jack 
Brooks, Tip O'Neill, Speakers and others who have reflected on the 
dignity of this House. When shame is brought upon this House, I would 
be the first to tell Members that we must rid ourselves of the shame. 
But term limits is a myth. It is a fraud. It is not democracy. It is 
carrying forth a political promise.
  I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and others who 
believe that they are compelled to support this that, yes, I think they 
should vote your conscience. I certainly think they should vote the way 
they think the representative body should want them to do, but I would 
ask them in a moment of calmness, in a moment of thoughtfulness, to 
analyze the basic values of the Constitution of the United States of 
America. It is for me to allow the people to speak.

  I would hope that maybe I will have the opportunity to address that 
by submitting, again, my amendment that the States be allowed to do as 
they choose but only in the context of supporting the fact that we in 
America believe in allowing the people to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 2; an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting the terms 
of Members of Congress.
  As an elected Member of Congress, I, along with each member, took an 
oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of 
America. This oath and commitment I do not take lightly, even if I 
alone must defend the Constitution against the very people with whom I 
took that oath and with whom I stand today.
  The Constitution is a sacred document which must not be changed based 
on the reactionary whims of Congressional members. We are not above the 
Constitution, we are included in the Constitution and each of us have 
sworn to serve as defenders and protectors of the Constitution.
  The issue of term limits is one that threatens the power of the 
American people to exercise a basic right granted by the Founding 
Fathers of our great country--the right to vote for the representative 
of their choice. This resolution shatters the core principle of freedom 
and seeks to spoil a right that many sacrificed, fought and died for--
the right to vote for whom they choose.
  Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, outlines the 
requirements and terms of Members of Congress, which include 
qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency.
  Section 2 states that ``the House of Representatives shall be 
composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the 
several States * * * '' This language of the Constitution is clear in 
that every 2 years, the people are to choose who will represent them, 
not current Members of Congress.
  Section 2 of the Constitution further states that ``no person shall 
be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-
five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and 
who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he 
shall be chosen.''
  This language says nothing about the ability of current Members of 
Congress choosing who may not represent the people of a particular 
district by virtue of a Member's previous service.
  Additionally, section 3 of article I of the Constitution states that 
``the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators of 
each State chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years * * *;'' 
but the American people, in choosing to adopt the 17th amendment, saw 
fit to reserve the power of who will represent the people in the Senate 
for themselves.
  The pertinent part of the 17th amendment states that ``the Senate of 
the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, 
elected by the people thereof, for six years. * * * ''
  I submit to you that if the Founding Fathers and writers of our 
Constitution wanted to include a provision that limited the number of 
years that an individual could serve as a representative of a group of 
constituents, they most certainly would have done so. However, they did 
not. We are wise to follow their wisdom.
  If passed, this amendment would only serve to severely limit the 
ability of voters across our country to take part in a process that is 
as old as the Constitution itself.
  I must state that as an African-American Member of Congress, I am 
rather skeptical of any effort to change or alter the ability of 
citizens to vote for the Member of their choice. For members of the 
African-American community are well aware of the dangers and 
consequences of limited access and limited choices.

  Supporters of this resolution aver that term limits will first, 
decrease the influence that special interest groups have on 
legislation; second, allow for fresh ideas to be brought to Congress; 
and third, permit greater access to Members for constituents.
  Let me be the first to say that the constituents of the historic 18th 
Congressional District--the district of Barbara Jordan and Mickey 
Leland--will always demand and share unlimited access to their 
Congressperson and their congressional office. This office is not my 
office. It is the office of the people of the 18th Congressional 
District whom I have the privilege of representing.
  The residents of the 18th Congressional District influence 
legislation each and every day. The office is inundated with letters 
and phone calls from our faithful constituents.
  I submit that the arguments of the supporters of term limits are 
disingenuous. If Members were genuinely concerned about the undue 
influence on legislation that special interest groups may have on 
particular Members, they only have to listen more to the voices of 
their constituents and combine with our commitment to the greater good; 
this will solve any problem with the alleged negative impact of any 
special interest group.
  Furthermore, the supporters of this resolution should include a 
provision which makes prior service to the House of Representatives and 
election to office a factor when considering eligibility for future 
service. Currently, this resolution does not do that. It is prospective 
in nature and does not apply to Members of Congress retroactively. This 
is a sham to the American public.
  Additionally, a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of 
congressional Members is duplicitous and redundant in nature. 
Currently, the American people may vote or not vote for whom they 
choose. They most recently made their choices known in the last 
election. This was accomplished by the people exercising their right 
already granted by the very Constitution which some seek to 
unnecessarily amend. The will of the people was accomplished without an 
amendment to the Constitution. The voters spoke and America listened.
  I hope that we can all agree that the constitutional decision of who 
should represent the residents of a particular district are the voters 
of that district, not those of us sitting here today. To suggest 
otherwise is to arrogantly place ourselves above the Constitution.

[[Page H470]]

  We are wise to be wary of too much Government intrusion into the 
lives of our citizens. How arrogant would it be to say to the eligible 
voters of America that we know what is best for you when it comes to 
choosing who will represent you. Let us put an end to this nonsense and 
get on with the business that the people of America sent us here to do.
  I am not in favor of deciding for the American people exactly who 
will be available to serve as a Member of Congress and who will not be 
by virtue of their previous service.
  This issue borders on the absurd. This resolution has the effect of 
penalizing a Member because he has the experience of representing the 
people of his district.
  Make no mistake. By seeking to limit the terms of the representatives 
of the people, you are actually limiting the will of the people.
   Mr. Chairman, allow me to make a simple analogy. Term limits equals 
forced terms.
  By offering this resolution, you are not only seeking to limit the 
terms of elected Representatives. You are seeking to force the terms 
under which a citizen may vote for his or her representative. You are 
forcing citizens to accept terms and conditions that are unacceptable. 
You are dictating to the voting population that these are the terms by 
which we think you should elect someone else to represent your concerns 
in Congress.
  The voice of the American people is heard when the vote of the 
American people is cast. Let us not muffle the resounding voice of the 
American people by limiting the vote of the American people. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this resolution.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friends not to ask me to yield 
because I have a lot to say and a limited time within which to say it.
  The popularity of term limits is a measure of the low esteem our 
citizens have for politics and politicians. Some of my colleagues may 
think that is fine. I think it is dangerous. Of course the way we 
attack each other and the way we demean this institution in every 
campaign, it is no wonder we are held in contempt. But before we leap 
off the cliff, before we amend the Constitution, we might give some 
passing deference to our Founding Fathers who over 200 years ago 
rejected term limits for Congress as they fashioned for us a 
representative democracy.
  I can remember the time when cynicism was a pathology, not the rule, 
when it was an honor to be elected to public office. As our Nation 
hurtles forward into an evermore complicated world, how self-
destructive it is to jettison our most capable leaders when we need 
their wisdom, we need their judgment so terribly much.
  Freedom is always in crisis. America has need of its giants with 
their sense of the past and their vision of the future. To adopt term 
limits is to play Russian roulette with the future. Since it is a 
constitutional amendment we are asked to adopt, it is reasonable to ask 
its proponents just what they want, what they seek to accomplish.
  Now it gets a little confusing, a little murky. One faction insists 
that Congress is too remote and unresponsive and is more interested in 
reelection than in serving the people. We will call this the Bob Novak 
wing because he is its most zealous advocate. But the other faction, 
led by George Will, says we are too close, too responsive to the 
people, and term limits will put some needed constitutional distance 
between us and a too demanding constituency. I ask, which is it, fever 
or frostbite? Are we too distant or are we too close?
  It appears to me term limits supporters are standing on two stools 
and as they separate, they are in danger of getting a constitutional 
hernia. It is a mighty strange rationale to amend our Constitution when 
its staunchest advocates cannot agree on its consequences.
  Speaking of journalistic anomalies, syndicated, columnist and talk 
show celebrity Bob Novak also publishes a newsletter with his partner 
Rollie Evans. No one this side of the editorial page of the Wall Street 
Journal is more vigorously committed to term limits than Bob Novak. But 
I received in the mail the other day an advertisement for the Evans and 
Novak political report and believe me, it is a symphony to experience.
  In fact on page 4 it makes a memorable claim, and I quote:

       Between the two of us, Rowland Evans and I have been 
     reporting on Washington and national politics for a combined 
     total of 90 years.

  I guess if you put their years of reporting end to end, they would 
have started when the senior Senator from South Carolina was 4 years 
old.
  Should we adopt a three-term limit version, enormous superclasses 
will enter the House in 6-year cycles and developing effective leaders 
will be a roll of the dice. A revolving door membership means a 
revolving door leadership with no continuity, no stability, and 
certainly no historical memory.
  Imagine telling these statesmen they cannot serve any longer, their 6 
years are up or their 12 years are up: John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, 
Arthur Vandenberg, Everett Dirksen, Sam Ervin, Hubert Humphrey, Henry 
Scoop Jackson, Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, Robert Byrd, Bill Natcher, 
Lee Hamilton. Would we survive as a free Nation as strong as we are 
without these people?
  Implicit in the argument for term limits is a premise that serving in 
Congress is not a particularly difficult job. Scholars say that 200 
years ago Tom Jefferson knew everything that was worth knowing. Well, 
today that is hardly possible. Just think of the range and the depth of 
knowledge necessary to deal with just a few of the issues that confront 
us:
  Electric power deregulation, a $208 billion industry with countless 
competing interests; States rights; monopoly power; environmental 
safety. No easy answers here.
  Well, Superfund reauthorization, plagued by litigation and delay; we 
need solutions regarding retroactive liability; a stable and fair 
funding stream. An easy task? I do not think so.
  Encryption of electronic communications; reconciling the needs of 
commerce with the needs of defending this country from terrorists and 
law enforcement. Not too easy. Medicare and Social Security reform, the 
effect of the baby boom retirements on all our social insurance 
programs, ABM defense, China, human rights versus trading with the most 
populous country in the world.

  I have not scratched the surface. But this is no place for 
amateurism. A Congressman who makes a career of public service, who is 
willing to make the sacrifice and the commitment develops a record, a 
standard of comparison to be judged by from election to election, and 
he is accountable for the long-term consequences of his action. No 
hobbyist legislator, no part-time lame duck legislator can share that 
kind of motivation.
  Term limits will encourage early exits. An attractive job offer comes 
along, you take it when it comes along because it might not be there 
when your term is up and you have to leave.
  Term limits will reduce competition for office. Why run this year 
when the seat will be vacant in 2 years? A system that does not reward 
effectiveness and seniority will discourage the most capable, the very 
people we desperately need. Term limits diminishes the opportunities to 
develop strong ties with your constituencies, with your communities. It 
diminishes the incentives and the opportunities, and this is no virtue.
  Term limits hands off power to the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, the 
executives and the other body, thus debilitating democracy in this 
Chamber. Under term limits this Chamber will be peopled by young men 
and women starting their careers, plus the few older people who will 
lose nothing by serving a term or two in Congress. But missing will be 
those in mid-life who must give up careers in law or business for a 
career of public service. We need them all, the young, the old, and 
those in the prime of life. Such a rich and varied mix makes this place 
a real House of Representatives.
  When we amend the Constitution, we should expand liberty, not 
diminish it, not contract the voters' choice. This amendment is not 
conservative. It is reactionary. It echoes the 1960's theme, ``never 
trust anybody over 30.''
  The last time we debated this issue, we opponents were accused of 
arrogance, that we were the only ones who were qualified to govern. On 
the contrary, the beginning of wisdom is knowing how much you do not 
know. And if there is any arrogance here, it is

[[Page H471]]

among those who have no idea how difficult it is to draw the line 
between liberty and order and would deny the voters the right to choose 
whom they will to help draw that line.

                              {time}  1145

  In a very sad way, this amendment demeans public service as a 
corrupting influence. It reeks of cynicism and pessimism.
  Let me tell my colleagues a story. On March 15, 1783, in Newburgh, 
NY, some officers in the Revolutionary Army met to plot an 
insurrection. They were furious at an uncaring Congress, one that had 
not paid them or their hungry troops in a long time.
  Suddenly in their midst General Washington appeared and asked leave 
to address the group. Out of respect for him, they let him speak. At 
the end, Washington wanted to read a letter from a Congressman 
explaining why there were no funds to pay the troops.
  General Washington searched for his spectacles because he could not 
read the letter. When he found them, he said, ``You will permit me to 
put on my spectacles, for I have grown blind in the service of my 
country.''
  Now, there are no General Washington's among us, but there are a few 
whose long and faithful service deserves admiration and respect, not 
oblivion.
  Public service is like climbing a mountain. The view from halfway up 
is better than the view from the bottom. And the higher one climbs, the 
more the horizon expands, and near the top one can see sights one never 
knew existed.
  The right to vote is the heart and the soul, it is the essence of 
democracy. Do not artificially restrict the choices available to the 
voters on election day. If the consent of the governed means anything 
to my colleagues, then our task today is to defend the consent of the 
governed, not to assault it. Do not give up on democracy. Trust the 
people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  My colleagues, I think we have heard from one of the most thoughtful 
of our Members. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary sets an 
example of the kind of comity that he talks about, because he has 
reported out a bill that he may not agree with. He has done it 
expeditiously and on time. He has neither incurred the wrath nor 
stimulated the rancor of any member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and I think that the Record should reflect it from those of us who 
serve on the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding me this time and I am honored to follow the chairman, who 
appropriately discussed this issue in its philosophical context because 
we are talking here about as fundamental a question as can be addressed 
in the body of elected officials.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I made an error in my remarks. I referred to the senior Senator from 
South Dakota, whom I have no interest in mentioning, but I meant the 
senior Senator from South Carolina; and I wish to correct that in the 
Record.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman is correct, and I think in the future just refer to him as 
the senior Senator from the Earth and that would probably make it clear 
to people to whom the gentleman is referring.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of lesser arguments that can be made 
on this which counter the arguments in favor. One argument has been, 
well, it is too hard to defeat incumbents. We know of course that that 
is simply no longer factually true. There was a period in our politics 
when incumbents seemed to be hard to defeat.
  I was always puzzled by that argument, still am. We must be the only 
profession in the world in which an indication that your employers are 
very satisfied with your work is taken as a sign that something is 
terribly wrong.
  If anyone in any other business maintains a good relationship with 
those who decide whether or not to continue to use the services, that 
is considered a good thing. A doctor, a lawyer, a grocery store 
manager, a shoe repair person, a teacher, anyone whose employers say, 
``Great job, keep at it,'' anyone to whom people keep returning for 
their custom is generally considered to be very good at their job.
  But in our case being approved of on a regular basis by those to whom 
we owe primary allegiance has been considered by some to be a bad sign. 
But even by that, it seems to me a wholly flawed measure. The arguments 
for this amendment have decreased. People know how to throw out of 
office those who they do not feel are serving them well. Members here 
have been defeated, Members have been turned out.
  In fact, let us be very clear. The underlying amendment here, the 12-
year amendment, we will get back to this when we get the amendment from 
the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell]. The 
unknown amendment which would add 14 years to what everybody now here 
serves would apply to less than 20 percent of the House. In fact, 12 
years is already an upper limit for many, many Members.
  We also heard the deficit argument. And the people said, well, the 
deficit was caused by all these people trying to get reelected. I will 
return to that argument because that is the core, it seems to me, of 
the flaw, namely that the people are a bad influence in this place and 
if we can somehow diminish their influence, we would be better off.
  But even that argument is flawed. There was a period in American 
history during the 1980's when conservatives, liberals, Republicans, 
and Democrats resolved their differences by agreeing to each other's 
deficit-enhancing proposals. So we wound up with more domestic 
spending, more military spending, with tax cuts, and the result was a 
ballooning of the deficit in which all parties were somehow complicit.
  But we have now seen a very drastic public shift. People are now 
driven to reduce that deficit by the very public influence that the 
proponents of this amendment want to kick out. It is the worst example 
of cultural lag seen in a long time because it builds on a temporary 
period in American history.
  And it was, if we look at this, and I am sure historians will 
conclude this, the term-limit movement was a specific response to 
people frustrated not with the system of American government but with 
the results that were being produced by that system at a particular 
period in history, and that is no longer there.
  But even if I did not agree on those two points, even if I did not 
agree that the amendment has been weakened on those two points, I would 
be fundamentally opposed to this amendment because, as the gentleman 
from Illinois pointed out, this essentially seeks to alter democracy, 
to reduce the choices of the voters. It is at bottom a view, as the 
gentleman from Illinois has consistently and courageously articulated, 
it is at bottom a view that says we cannot trust the voters.
  The voters are, according to the proponents of this amendment, too 
easily seduced. The voters must be put in some kind of fetters. Because 
we leave to the voters of America, unconstrained, the choice every 2 
years of who should represent them in the House of Representatives and 
every 6 years who should represent them in the Senate, two fairly 
profound choices, and this amendment says leave to the unconstrained 
choice of the American people who they wish to have represent them 
every 2 years and every 6 years and the results will be bad.
  What else can that be but a negative judgment on the competence of 
the voters? What else is it but a notion that the voters are too easily 
bamboozled? We would be in a terrible situation if that were the case.
  We have a sad problem in parts of the world. Algeria was an example. 
What do we do when we bring democracy to a voting public and it votes 
to end democracy? That is a fundamental philosophical problem for those 
of us who believe profoundly in democracy as a guarantor of the basic 
rights of human beings.
  We do not believe in democracy because it is fun to sit up on 
election night. We believe, given the inherent

[[Page H472]]

nature of human beings, when we give one set of human beings 
consistently power over another, we better give those over whom the 
power is offered some self-defense weapons, because people have a 
tendency to abuse power and wield it to their own interest.
  The ability to vote for or against them on a periodic basis is that 
fundamental guarantor, the nearest we can come, in this imperfect 
world, to fairness on the part of the voters.
  So we get this amendment, which says that does not work, and let us 
restrict what the public can do. Let us tell the public that there is 
one set of choices they can make.
  And, by the way, people have said, well, what about the Presidency? 
First, I do think we can make a somewhat stronger argument for limiting 
an executive than a legislator, but I oppose both.
  In 1985 our former colleague, Mr. Vander Jagt, of Michigan, 
introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the limiting amendment 
on the President. He wanted to allow Ronald Reagan to run for a third 
term. I cosponsored that amendment, although I will confess that if my 
colleagues polled me, I probably would have come out leaning against a 
third term for Mr. Reagan, but I thought democracy meant people had a 
right to do something even if I was not going to approve of the 
outcome, and I have consistently supported a repeal of that.
  But there is even a stronger argument for doing this with a 
legislator. One might argue an executive accretes too much power. I do 
not agree that that is a reason to overcome democracy, but it is an 
argument that cannot be made. There has not been a single legislator in 
the history of this country who can be deemed to have accumulated the 
power in foreign policy, in committing troops to war, in appointing 
Federal judges that any President has if he is there for a year. There 
is a great disproportion.
  Indeed, that is another reason to be against this amendment. One is 
the constraint on democracy. The other is this amendment would do more 
to alter the balance in favor of the executive and against the 
legislature than any other single action we could take, with the 
possible exception of the legislative veto.

  And it is interesting, I read in The Hill this morning that some of 
the Republicans who were all for the legislative veto are now worried 
about how it might enhance Bill Clinton's power too much and are 
thinking of ways to restrict the use of it. That is an entirely 
reasonable fear. But this one would enhance the executive even more.
  No one is proposing, nor would anyone, I think, propose term limits 
for the bureaucracy. We certainly do not want to say that nuclear 
engineers, medical research supervisors, prosecutors, other very 
important specialists in this Government, people who are expert in 
fission, people who are expert in foreign policy, no one is proposing 
that every 12 years they have to leave.
  I do not use the term ``bureaucracy'' in a negative sense. Some of my 
close relatives are bureaucrats. I have an enormous respect for those 
who work for this Federal Government because, in many cases, 
particularly in these areas of expertise, they are very, very talented 
people working for far less compensation than they would get in the 
private sector.
  We are lucky that we have lawyers willing to work as prosecutors for 
a small percentage of what they would get if they were out there in the 
private sector. We are lucky there are dedicated scientists working 
purely to try to find ways to combat illnesses when they could make 
more in the private sector.
  But one of the jobs that we have, as we all know, is to intervene on 
behalf of our constituents, whether they be individuals or 
municipalities or businesses or labor unions. We intervene on behalf of 
individuals when they have been unfairly treated. And there are no 
perfect institutions in this world. Bureaucrats, as much as I admire 
them, will from time to time treat people unfairly. That happens to 
everybody.
  My ability to intervene on behalf of my constituents, my staff and I, 
is enhanced by the experience we have. I will tell my colleagues that 
now I am a better advocate for those in my constituency who may have 
been treated unfairly than I was in my first and second and third term. 
It may level off after a while, but if we adopt a 12-year term limit, 
and this is, of course, a fortiori if we do a 4-year or a 6-year term 
limit, we then have to figure most people will not serve up to the 
limit.
  People will begin to see, as the gentleman from Illinois pointed out, 
they will begin to see the term limit approaching and they will start 
taking alternative jobs. No one will wait until the minute they have to 
go out the door to do alternative planning. So they will start leaving. 
They will live for the private sector and other public jobs. The median 
service in this place will go down very substantially.
  What that will mean will be that the institutional memory in this 
city will be almost exclusively an executive branch institutional 
memory. We will have experienced, dedicated executive branch appointees 
and executive branch personnel dealing with relatively inexperienced 
legislators and staff.
  I am not one who thinks this will help the legislative staff. 
Legislative staffs tend to go with the Members, particularly the 
personal staff, those who do a lot of the constituency intervention 
work. We will greatly enhance the power of the executive, even a term-
limited President. Because it is not the President's policies we are 
often dealing with when we intervene on behalf of our constituents, it 
is the ongoing bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy that must be ongoing in 
our interest. Well-intentioned, the best bureaucracy in the world will 
make those mistakes.
  So two streams come together. First, this is an amendment that says 
the American experiment in giving the people unrestrained power to 
decide who should represent them every 2 years was a mistake. That was 
not, of course, the experiment, as the gentlewoman from Texas pointed 
out, of 1787.

                              {time}  1200

  That did not become American practice until the 1920's. And in fact 
probably not even until the 1960's. It was not until after the passage 
of the Voting Rights Act and the other constitutional amendments 
dealing with other restrictions until we got rid of literacy tests and 
poll taxes of a discriminatory kind. But we have had now in America, I 
believe, as unconstrained a democracy as it is possible to have in a 
modern complex urban society.
  Can we not be proud of that? Can we not be proud of the fact that in 
America there are fewer formal restrictions on the ability of citizens 
to vote for their Representatives than I believe in any other society 
with which I am familiar. Have the results really been that bad? I do 
not think so. I think America still is a place of great envy in the 
world. We certainly still are from the immigration standpoint, from the 
problem that everybody wants to come here.
  Our economy, the state of our liberty, all of us can find flaws, but 
all of us I think would acknowledge that they are in pretty good shape. 
And the mechanism for improving on them must be self-correction. I do 
not want to add further. Add term limits to the line-item veto and the 
first President to serve during that era of term limits with a line-
item veto, I guarantee you will be the most powerful President in the 
history of the United States, because the legislature will have put one 
more shackle on itself and ended a two centuries old tradition in 
America of expanding the freedom of the voters. We did it with direct 
election of Senators, with doing away with property rights, with 
empowering African-Americans, with letting women vote, with reducing 
the vote to 18.
  With the exception of the 22d amendment, which I think was obviously 
just fear of FDR coming back again, with that exception, every time we 
have amended the American Constitution regarding our system, we have 
expanded democracy. This would be the most significant reactionary act, 
as the gentleman from Illinois correctly labeled it.
  Let us not tell the American people that we have decided after 200 
plus years of successful and expanding democracy that the fundamental 
premise that we can trust the voters, unconstrained, to make the best 
decisions in their own interests was a mistake, and passing an 
amendment that so severely

[[Page H473]]

limits them, the most severe limitation on the right of the voters to 
have been put forward in the history of this country. Do not undo the 
very proud democratic history of this country. Let us continue to be a 
beacon to the world of what representative government, electoral 
freedom, unconstrained, can produce.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for indulging me in the time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, one thing I wanted to start off with is I 
often hear where a great American, one of our Founding Fathers, is 
quoted in this great body of ours. We refer to him often, sometimes 
when it is more convenient than others, and that is Thomas Jefferson, 
who in 1787, soon after formulating our Constitution, this is what he 
had to say: ``The second feature I dislike--about the new 
Constitution--and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance 
of the necessity of rotation in office.''
  This is Thomas Jefferson, one of the people we put a great deal of 
faith and trust in. Before I came to Congress, I believed in term 
limits and after having served here for 2 years, I feel stronger than 
ever before that this is absolutely the right way to go. I think that 
term limits are needed so that we can maintain the energy level 
necessary to keep up with what is necessary to give 150 percent, and I 
think it is somewhat questionable if you can do that after 25 years, or 
less than that.
  I think it is necessary to make sure that Members stay in touch with 
their district, the real world. While this is where we work and vote, 
the real world is back in our districts. That is what we need to keep 
the link with. I think we need to make sure that Members stay rooted in 
what their constituents feel strongly about, what they feel 
passionately about, what is on their minds. In my belief, term limits 
will help us do that. Creating a healthy turnover among Members will 
make our Federal Government less responsive to the needs of special 
interest groups and more responsive to the needs of everyday Americans 
that we are entrusted to represent.
  I do not imagine, and I cannot conceive, that our Founding Fathers 
ever would have envisioned elected officials making a career out of 
politics.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], a distinguished colleague of mine 
from the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois has outlined the 
reason why we have to have experience and the necessity of having 
experience and the value of democracy. We also have to look at the fact 
that people have already used their power to vote. There has been 
significant turnover in the House in the last few years. The voters 
have voted out old and young alike. They have discovered that some of 
the newer Members are totally out of touch, some of the more veteran 
Members are in fact more in touch and need to be returned, and they 
have used that power.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not trivialize the Constitution with 
amendments that are not necessary. We have before us so many variations 
on that amendment that it is so clear that we have not studied this 
sufficiently to know which version is the correct version. In fact, we 
have not even decided what the problem is.
  As the gentleman from Illinois indicated, some have said that voters 
need to be closer to the people, that Congressmen need to be closer to 
the people. Others have said if this passes we will be further away 
from the people. It is like snake oil. Whatever you want, this will 
cure.
  We also have a question of how close legislators ought to be to 
special interests. In fact, in your first term, you are more beholden 
to special interests than you are when you have served a number of 
terms. That is because after you have established yourself, you can 
raise your own money and you can get your own votes without having to 
rely on the special interests. People want Congressmen to be more 
interested in the people's business.
  As the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, when each 
Representative comes and has to look towards the next job instead of a 
career where you are required to attend to the people's business, you 
will find that legislators as soon as they arrive will be looking 
towards that next job, many of which may be employed by the various 
special interests that we may be voting on their interests.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a situation in Congress where we are very 
contentious and we want to improve the atmosphere in Congress. But if 
you think about that, are we more likely to be courteous to those that 
we are going to have to spend an indefinite amount of time with or 
those we know we will not see after next year?
  And then finally we find an interest to listen to the people. The 
people have expressed their interest in term limits, and we find this 
very resolution will overrule the specific expressions of many States 
who have said that 6-year term limits are preferable, not 12. So if we 
listen to the people, we should reject House Joint Resolution 2 because 
it would not allow the shorter limit that people have spoken to. In 
fact, some States do not want term limits at all. We should have 
adopted as in order the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] which would give the States the option if we are going to 
have any term limits at all.
  Mr. Chairman, we have not determined which version is appropriate. We 
have not even determined what problem we are trying to solve. Term 
limits may sound like a catchy idea, but the existing limits, called 
elections, are the best way to go.
  I ask Members to vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 2.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I appreciate the opportunity to have this debate on the floor 
of the House today and to have this historic vote on term limits, the 
second in the history of the country.
  Let me start by thanking the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary who spoke very eloquently before, against term limits, but to 
thank Henry Hyde for being willing to let this come through his 
committee and for being willing to let there be this debate on the 
floor of the House so that the American people can hear the debate and 
know that their voices are being heard. It speaks very well for the 
chairman to allow that to happen, and it also speaks well for the 
leadership of this House.
  Speaker Gingrich promised that when we failed in the Contract With 
America to get enough votes to propose a constitutional amendment here 
in the House, he promised that this would be the first substantive vote 
of the new Congress if he were still Speaker. Here we are at the first 
substantive vote of this new Congress, promises made, promises kept, I 
very much appreciate the integrity of the leadership for seeing that 
happen.
  So with thanks to the leadership and thanks to Chairman Hyde for 
allowing this to come through the committee, I would start by saying, 
Mr. Chairman, that the issue of term limits is one that the American 
people understand to be the best reform we could bring to the 
institution of Congress. There has been a lot of discussion about 
whether we need term limits in order to get rid of experienced people.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary particularly spoke to 
that. I would differ slightly with that. I do not think that is really 
necessarily the goal of term limits, to throw out people with 
experience. Because in fact we have no objection in the term limits 
effort if Henry Hyde wanted to run for President, I would be one of the 
first to sign on to the Henry Hyde for President committee. We do not 
have a problem with that kind of experience.
  What we do have a problem with is a Congress made up of incumbents 
who are virtually safe in their House districts, such that there is 
almost no way for them to be defeated. As evidence of that, let me 
present some statistics about the reelection rate of House incumbents, 
starting in 1990.
  In 1990, of those incumbents who wanted to come back, in other words, 
some people retire, some people get indicted, I suppose, some people do 
whatever and leave this House. But of those

[[Page H474]]

who wanted to come back, 96 percent came back in 1990. In 1992, the 
year that I came here, 88 percent of incumbents, those who stood for 
reelection, who wanted to come back to serve in the House, came back--
88 percent rate of reelection. Then in 1994, the rate of reelection was 
90 percent. That is interesting, because a lot of people assumed that 
in 1994 we had major change, significant change here in the House, and 
we did get some change. A lot of that change came from open seats. Very 
little change came from actual losses by incumbents to challengers--90 
percent were reelected in 1994. And in 1996 we were back up to a 94-
percent rate of reelection. In other words, 94 percent of us who wanted 
to come back, came back as a result of the 1996 election.
  This does not indicate that the American people are terribly 
satisfied, I do not think, however. Some would use these statistics to 
say, ``Well, that is because they love me. That is why they keep 
sending me back.'' I do not think that is exactly it. I think it is 
mostly that there are tremendous advantages of incumbency. The biggest 
one is fundraising. Of course the way we have got the campaign finance 
system set up, the PAC system rewards incumbents. It protects 
incumbents from voters. It makes it so that incumbents become virtual 
shoo-ins for their reelection.
  Some would say, therefore, that is an argument not for term limits, 
that is an argument for campaign finance reform. I would agree that it 
is a good argument for campaign finance reform, but even if we get 
campaign finance reform, and I certainly hope we do, there are still 
tremendous advantages to incumbency.
  In 1992, I was one of these folks who was running in a challenge 
race. During the course of the 1992 campaign, just as a very small 
illustration of what I am talking about, about the other nonfundraising 
advantages of incumbency. I was invited on precisely one plant tour. I 
got that one opportunity to tour a plant because one of my partners 
prevailed upon his client who owned the plant and begged my way in to 
tour his plant. One plant tour. Everybody that is a Member of Congress, 
I am sure, sitting here, has had the same experience.
  Now, as an incumbent, there is a list of people who would be happy to 
have me come tour their plant. Generally what happens is people sort of 
stop production, they gather people around, and it turns into a town 
meeting. It is a wonderful opportunity for them, and a way to hear 
about their Government, and I appreciate that, and it really is a very 
valid thing about going there and doing the plant meeting and having 
that opportunity. But it is also a significant advantage to incumbency, 
not just in fundraising but in these other things.
  Then when you consider the fact that you have the opportunity to be 
in the media quite frequently in your local district, the result is, 
particularly here in the House, significant advantages to incumbency. 
What we see is that Members are able to create virtually safe seats in 
cozy House districts.

                              {time}  1215

  Term limits would change that, and some would criticize and say, 
well, then in the term limit effort it would be inconsistent to allow, 
say, Henry Hyde to run for President. I do not think so. I think that 
it would be wonderful if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] wanted 
to run for President; I would again sign on.
  Not many people in the term limit effort had much of an objection, 
for example, to Governor Reagan running to be President Reagan. We do 
not lose the talent that everybody is talking about losing out of this 
body; we just redirect it. The talented Member of Congress can run for 
Governor, and the talented Senator can run for President, and between 
President and Governor there are dozens of other positions for those 
folks to fill very capably and to continue making a contribution to 
public service.
  We do not want to discourage public service in term limits. What we 
want to do is bring in some fresh folks.
  Now of course the argument is that a clear majority of the people in 
this House have been here for less than the term limit that we are 
proposing, which the one that will get the most votes, of course, will 
be the 12-year proposal. That may be true. But what we have to look at 
is the number of people in the senior positions in the Congress and 
have they been here longer than that term limit. The answer is ``yes,'' 
they have been here. So while we get change in this body, it is 
typically at the lower levels of the body, not in the leadership roles. 
It is critical to get that kind of change even at the higher levels.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I ask my 
distinguished colleague from South Carolina, who serves on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, has he considered the proposition of self-
limiting terms of Members? I think he is an example of that.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think that term limits, 
it is wonderful if somebody will apply the limit to themselves, but we 
need universal limits, I believe, across the board.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a growing list of people who are 
self-limiting their term, and I do not say the gentleman started this, 
but there are others that are doing it. We might want to consider this 
in the mix of proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for yielding time for this purpose and 
appreciate the opportunity to debate this important issue.
  I believe in support of democracy of the people, by the people and 
for the people.
  Now we are going to hear some people on the other side who will 
probably say they are the ones that are in support of democracy of the 
people, by the people and for the people, but I think we can make the 
only evaluation of that.
  I rise in opposition to this proposed amendment, and I plan to vote 
in opposition to all of the proposals that will come to the floor 
today. I think term limits, first of all, a bad idea, and I will run 
through quickly the reasons; a lot of those reasons have been mentioned 
here today.
  I think term limits would have the effect of turning our democracy 
over to the experienced staff people who staff the committees. Those 
people do not answer to any electorate out there, but they are going to 
be here regardless of whether I leave or do not leave, and they end up 
setting the policy.
  I think term limits significantly would alter the balance between the 
legislative and executive branch, and my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has ably talked about that; so, I think it is 
a bad idea for that reason.
  I think term limits would probably significantly reduce voter 
turnout, and I cannot prove this by any statistical study, but it just 
seems to me that we are already having trouble getting people to turn 
out to vote. Limit terms to 2 years or 4 years or 6 years; people have 
even less inducement to go out and vote because the person is going to 
be reelected for that period of time and they are going to be gone 
after that period of time, so why bother to go out and vote?
  And contrary to the arguments that many of my supporters of this 
amendment will assert, I think term limits have the effect of 
increasing the influence of special interests because the minute one 
gets elected to serve in this body they stop looking for a position to 
land in after they are no longer here, whether it is the U.S. Senate or 
whether it is some corporate position. I think it has the effect of 
increasing the influence of special interests.
  But those are my bad-idea reasons for being opposed to this 
amendment. I want to talk a little bit about the constitutional aspects 
of this because I agree with the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who said that this proposal is not 
a conservative idea, it is a reactionary idea, and I said that over and 
over again because many of my colleagues have heard me say on the floor 
that I actually think I am the most

[[Page H475]]

conservative Member of this body. I am the one who comes to the floor 
consistently and fights for the Constitution of the United States as it 
is currently written, and as my conservative colleagues, who are always 
claiming to be conservative, who keep running these constitutional 
amendments at us: the term limits amendment, the balanced budget 
amendment, the line item veto amendment, the school prayer amendment--
this amendment, that amendment--an unprecedented number of proposed 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States were offered in the 
last quote unquote conservative term of Congress by my conservative 
colleagues, this one perhaps is the most arrogant one of them.
  There is the sense of arrogance that goes with the notion, I think, 
on the part of my colleagues that they can do a better job of writing 
the Constitution than the Founding Fathers of this country did. They 
are smarter than Madison and the people who were writing the 
Constitution back at that time, even though this Constitution has 
survived all of these years and has worked so well for our democracy. 
The arrogance of these people is particularly evident in this proposed 
amendment, because we have got all kinds of different variations of it. 
We have got nine different proposals that we are going to vote on today 
to amend the Constitution.
  We got one that would give us 2-year terms and the senators two 6-
year terms, the so-called Arkansas version. We have got one that they 
call the Colorado version. We have got one that they call the Idaho 
version. We got one they call the Missouri version. We have got a 
Nebraska version, a Nevada version, a South Dakota version, and all of 
these people are coming in here saying, I am the conservative. We even 
got a group out there, so-called term limits--what is that group, U.S. 
Term Limits--who is saying, ``If you put any version of this bill on 
the ballot other than the version that I support, then we are going to 
write you up, and you are required to put something on the ballot to 
say you did not support my version of the term limits.''
  That is arrogance. That is arrogance on the part of my colleagues who 
say, oh, no, I am conservative. If they got some conservative 
philosophy, at least it ought to be consistent. There ought not be 9 
different versions of conservatism, each one of which is parading 
itself in this body as being the conservative version. That is 
arrogance, my colleagues.
  Finally, let me caution us against this idea that we ought to be 
writing a Constitution based on polling information. Let me caution us 
against that. For those of my colleagues who follow this body, they 
will remember that I was the person who came to the floor last term of 
Congress on a crime bill and offered the specific language of the 
fourth amendment as an amendment to the bill because my colleagues kept 
arguing to me no, we are not altering the fourth amendment to the 
Constitution by doing this, we are not doing anything.
  Well, I say what is wrong with the language of the fourth amendment? 
Why not support that? And it was my colleagues here who overwhelmingly 
voted down the specific provisions of the fourth amendment.
  In the context of preparing to offer that amendment, I did a little 
looking around, and I found that if we polled the American people, a 
substantial majority of them would say: I do not support the 1st 
amendment, the 2d amendment, the 3d amendment, the 4th amendment, the 
14th amendment, and on and on and on. The Constitution was written as 
the framework for democracy to withstand the kinds of attacks that 
evidenced themselves in popular polls.

  And in the testimony before our committee, in the testimony before 
the Committee on the Judiciary, I was just flabbergasted to hear an 
intellectual conservative come before our body, and I am not supposed 
to name names so I am not going to call the name, and say I support 
term limits because this provision is not relevant to today's society. 
And I say, well now. Is the first amendment relevant to today's 
society? Our debate has gotten shrill, our debate has gotten very 
partisan and mean-spirited in many cases. Does that mean we ought to 
rewrite the first amendment to the Constitution also? I guess not 
relevant to today's society.
  What about the fourth amendment to the Constitution? There is a lot 
of crime out there on the streets. Does that mean we ought to turn over 
to the Government and the police the authority to kick in our doors, 
and search our homes, and tap our phones, in an unlimited way? Maybe 
the fourth amendment is not relevant to today's society.
  My colleagues, this framework was based on democracy and government 
of the people, by the people and for the people. It is the people who 
vote every 2 years to send us back here or not send us back here. And 
the notion that we ought to say to them, ``Oh no, we have got to 
distance ourselves from you, we do not want you to have this kind of 
influence in our system;'' my colleagues, it is dangerous and counter-
democratic.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the principle of democracy and 
representative government that says it is the people who control our 
democracy, allow the people to continue to speak. Do not restrict them. 
Please do not restricted them.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering, in listening to the 
gentleman about the right of the people to determine what may or may 
not go into the Constitution, how did the gentleman feel, although he 
was not a Member of Congress at the time, nor was I----
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I suspect the gentleman is 
getting ready to ask me about some amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. If I could just inquire, how did the gentleman feel about 
the limitation of the term of presidency to two terms?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are 
not debating that. I was not here then. I probably would have voted 
against it if I had been here because I would have thought that it was 
a significant alteration. But that is not what we are here to talk 
about today. I did not go back and vote then. I was not even a Member 
of Congress then.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, in 
that case, like in any constitutional amendment, we do defer to the 
right of the people to make that final judgment by the State 
legislatures that have to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am sure that is true, and I am sure 
that is true of this amendment too. That does not defeat the purpose 
for which I rise today, and I hope my colleague does not think it does.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I hope my colleagues 
will listen to their chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in 
this case Chairman Hyde.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the constitutional 
amendment for uniform national term limits: 12 years for a Member of 
the House, 12 years for a Member of the Senate.
  The only way to establish term limit parity among all States is to 
pass the amendment. The one we are voting on creates uniform national 
term limits, placing no State at a disadvantage. I am committed to that 
prospect.
  Some support a 6-year term limit for Members of the House, allowing 
Senators, however, to serve 12 years. They call it 3 terms versus 2, 
but it is 6 years and 12 years. That is lopsided. If Senators could 
serve twice as long in the Congress as Representatives could, it means 
more power for the Senate and less for the House. Is that what we want?
  Senators only face the voters once every 6 years. Members of the 
House face the voters once every 2 years. Which one is more responsive 
to the voters?
  We want uniform service by those who are most responsive, not placing 
them at a disadvantage by saying they can only serve twice as long.
  Now, some who promote term limits in fact are promoting a shift of 
power. We believe in the principle of term limits. We have it on 
Presidents. We have it in State legislatures. We have it in

[[Page H476]]

city governments. We have it on many governors. The proposition has 
already been established in this country. It is dominantly supported by 
the people. The real and proper question is to ask, what is the right 
way to go about it?
  If the voters want to change a President, they can only do so every 4 
years. If they wish to change a Senator, they can only do it once every 
6 years. A Federal judge is there for a lifetime. A professional 
bureaucrat is there for who knows how long. A Member of the House 
serves every 2 years and is held accountable every 2 years. Why would 
we say we want them to be the weakest among all of the elected persons 
in Washington? It makes no sense. I support 12 and 12, uniform national 
term limits, and urge their adoption.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits is a policy issue. There is not one single 
right answer or wrong answer as to whether term limits should be 
adopted or not. It is a question of what policy do we wish for the 
Congress of the United States.
  There are a number of reasons in favor of passing term limits, and I 
believe that they have been and will continue to be adequately 
presented here. There are a number of reasons to oppose term limits, 
which again I think have been very well voiced here today and will 
continue to be.
  I am going to support the term limits amendment for this reason: I 
believe that we here in the Congress who are most affected by this 
decision should share this decision with the people of the United 
States through their legislatures. In other words, I can think of no 
reason why we should withhold this policy decision within the Congress. 
I believe that we should share it with the State legislatures by voting 
in favor of a constitutional amendment.
  The State legislatures then can adopt this amendment or not adopt 
this amendment, but that will be the final decision. The final decision 
is not made in the House of Representatives or in the other body, in 
the U.S. Congress.
  I have to say, however, I feel very strongly that if we are going to 
propose a constitutional amendment, we propose it on an equal basis for 
a number of years, whatever that number of years is, between the House 
and the other body. There is absolutely no real reason why the number 
of years that is a maximum cap on service should be different between 
the two Houses of Congress. That would serve to make only one House 
essentially more powerful than the other House, which is contrary to 
the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution, I believe. So I will 
vote against those amendments which propose to offer different maximums 
between the two Houses.
  I will, however, vote in favor of an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] which says the States may choose to 
do that if they want to for the delegations within their State. I will 
vote for the amendment that says States may set a lesser amount of time 
within that State's delegation. Therefore, if they want to set, for 
example, less time for the House than the Senate, they can do so. I 
think it is a bad idea, myself, but I think the States should have that 
authority.
  Finally, I intend to support the Dingell-Barton amendment that will 
be offered that says that the idea of term limits, the maximum time to 
be considered for term limits, is considered retroactively. In other 
words, it will apply to all of us in this Chamber today. If term limits 
is in fact a good enough idea that we support it or that we invite the 
States to support it, then it is a good idea to start immediately and 
not to start on some day in the future.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] and his bill, because it is uniform: 12 years for the House, 
12 years for the Senate. I would like to give my colleagues my views of 
some of the things that have been mentioned.
  Bureaucrats and term limits: The argument is if we rotate people 
through this body too quickly, we empower the bureaucratic side of 
government. My limited experience of 2 years tells me that the most 
cozy relationship in the world in Washington is senior bureaucrats with 
senior people in Congress serving on committees, because one knows how 
to take care of the other, and the biggest fear most bureaucrats have 
is new people asking new questions. So I do not buy that one bit.
  What do the people think? I would challenge my colleagues to go out 
and ask people on the street, and they will find out that 70 percent of 
them support term limits in some fashion, but if we had a national 
referendum there would be no doubt in my mind that there would be 
overwhelming public support for term limits on this body. That does not 
mean the people who occupy the jobs are evil, it just means people 
paying the taxes want change in their government.
  What would that change be? It would fundamentally change the way we 
view our job in Congress. The issues of the day, like Social Security, 
Medicare, they are complicated but they are not beyond the grasp of 
everyday people to understand.
  I know why Social Security has a problem. We are borrowing money from 
the Social Security trust fund and spending it to run the Government 
and we need to stop it. I know why Medicare has grown 22 percent since 
1980. It did not take me a career to figure that out. I am willing to 
do something about it, and I have not planned my life around staying up 
here. I want to do a good job while I am here, and I want to go home 
and be part of my community.
  I think term limits would change the Government for the better, 
undoubtedly so, and 70 percent of the public, if had a chance to vote 
on it, I think would agree with me and disagree with the opponents.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the gentleman if he has 
heard about the concept of self-limitation of terms that Members are 
beginning to impose upon themselves?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, yes. And I have limited 
myself to 12 years because I think that is a reasonable period of time, 
sir.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Hulshof].
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I have here in my hand a copy of the 
Constitution, about which there has been much debate here today. I 
believe that the Founders created this document which outlined the 
principles by which we have been governed and continue to be governed, 
but they also provided, through article V, a means by which we can add 
to this document.
  That is why we are here today, to determine whether, under article V, 
Congress shall deem it necessary to enact term limits, and I am in 
favor of a constitutional amendment subject to ratification by the 
States.
  We are a government of the people, not a government of a select few. 
Our Founders fled the shores of England to come to this great country 
to escape a tyrannical leader and a government of elitists.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, I am a newly elected Member here, and 
there has been some discussion about the word ``arrogance.'' Let me 
give my colleagues an example of arrogance.
  During the waning weeks of the 1996 campaign, the former Congressman 
from my district, a 10-term incumbent career politician, exhorted the 
voters in my district to repudiate my candidacy with the words, ``a 
freshman cannot accomplish anything in Congress''. That arrogant 
attitude with which that statement was uttered is somewhat the same 
self-important attitude that is the subject of this debate and drives 
some in the opposition. They say we cannot trivialize the Constitution, 
as I have heard mentioned.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a living document, and it is time for us to 
enact the will of the people. Let the one among us who believes himself 
to be irreplaceable in this Chamber, let him cast the

[[Page H477]]

first vote ``no.'' But as for me, Mr. Chairman, I intend to enact the 
will of the people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds to 
inquire of my new freshman colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Hulshof], whose statement we welcome and whose presence we welcome to 
the Congress. Some arrogant career politicians said a freshman cannot 
accomplish anything in Congress. I presume that the gentleman has 
something to accomplish in this noble body, correct?
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, it will be incumbent upon me in the next 
couple of months to prove that declaration to be false, yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the people in Missouri 
believe the gentleman, that he can do it, and we will be watching and 
waiting.
  Now, does the gentleman plan to impose self limits on his term of 
office? How does the gentleman look at this, regardless of what the 
body does here today?
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I have pledged to the people back home in 
the 9th Congressional District that I do not intend to make a career 
out of politics.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, wait a minute. That is wonderful, but does the 
gentleman plan to limit the number of terms he intends to serve?
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I have made that statement public, yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman divulge to us, just 
between us, how many he plans to serve?
  Mr. HULSHOF. Absolutely, I would be happy to. Of course that is 
dependent upon the good people of my district, but when I ran for this 
seat back in 1994 unsuccessfully, and again here in this last election, 
12 and 12 as proposed by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, our Constitution is a document that has 
stood the test of time for over 2 centuries, and I think every person 
in this Chamber should admit that the Founding Fathers got it right and 
vote down these term-limit amendments.
  The Founding Fathers established term limits when they wrote the 
Constitution. They are called elections, to quote my friend and the 
chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Hyde. Yet here we 
are today engaged in this debate primarily because the majority of the 
American people, fueled by radio talk shows and pollsters, support 
limits. I believe their concerns are right, but their answer and their 
solution is wrong.
  We do need congressional turnover and fresh ideas, but we need those 
ideas to be combined with the balance of experience and expertise.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a learning curve for every job and the same is 
true for Members of Congress. To impose automatic term limits would 
greatly increase, and I think this is very important, greatly increase 
the power of paid congressional staff, lobbyists, government 
bureaucrats, and I might add all of those other elected government 
regulators. The general public does not understand that. If they did, 
they would recognize how ill-advised these automatic term limits really 
are.

                              {time}  1245

  I do not have time to go into the revolving door syndrome, where 
Members would spend their time making sure they had a good, soft job 
with the special interest groups they were working with when they were 
in Congress. After all, you have to have a job after you leave. I will 
not go into that.
  But I do say that the widespread public concern should now be 
directed to campaign financing reform. I think what we need is the 
level playing field between Members and challengers, so the challengers 
can have the means whereby they can get their message out to the 
voters.
  The answer is genuine campaign financing reform. We have that 
legislation before us, from Senators McCain, Feingold, the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Meehan] and myself. It is a bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Chairman, we do need reform, but term limits are not the 
solution. I say term limits, no; genuine campaign financing reform, 
yes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cook].
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, for years I have worked to make term 
limitation a reality. I launched and led the term-limitation initiative 
drive in the State of Utah, because the people of the State of Utah, 
indeed the people of America, want term limits. I did not believe that 
we could get it through the legislature. I was very skeptical that we 
could get it through the Congress of the United States.
  Quite honestly, I think with respect to this issue, the arrogance is 
reserved for those who absolutely insist they know better than the 
people, and refuse to listen to the will of the people. I am supporting 
the McCollum 12-year amendment, because I think that amendment is one 
that balances the importance of having experienced Members, but it 
stops where we run into the risk of having career politicians.
  Mr. Chairman, I think George Washington set the example. When there 
was obvious near-unanimous consent for him to approach a third term, he 
stepped down because, he said, people needed that opportunity.
  Finally, I think we just simply have to realize as we work on 
legislation, as we propose it, and as we vote on it each day, that we 
need to feel that we have to go back and live under the laws that we 
helped create. I am strongly in support of the 12-year-term limitation 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, term limits is an idea whose time has come 
and gone. It is a feel-good constitutional amendment that does not 
belong in that cherished document. Term limits is a simplistic solution 
to the complex challenge of making our Federal Government work more 
effectively. It is a bad idea, an idea that limits the rights of 
citizens to vote for or against whomever they choose.
  We all know this issue is going to be defeated today, so would it not 
be better if we moved on to the issues that truly affect the daily 
lives of average working families in America, issues such as balancing 
the budget and welfare reform and crime and education for their 
children, health care?
  How absurd and how dangerous it would be to have the Committee on 
National Security, which oversees a $250 billion annual budget and 
literally makes life and death decisions over the lives of young men 
and women in uniform serving this country, to have that committee 
arbitrarily chaired by someone who might have been in this House only 4 
years. It just simply does not make sense, and it would not be right 
for our military personnel or for the future of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, the passage of an arbitrary term-limits amendment would 
create a Washington Mardi Gras for District of Columbia lobbyists, 
staff, and bureaucrats, people over whom average Americans have little 
or no control. The fact is, Americans are exercising the concept of 
term limits envisioned by our Founding Fathers. It is called voting. It 
is called an election.
  The fact is that over 60 percent of House Members in this body have 
been elected since 1990. Mr. Chairman, I respect those who genuinely 
believe in term limits, but I hope the national media or someone might 
create a ``hall of hypocrisy'' for those who believe it should be a 
crime to serve in this Congress for more than 6 or 12 years but they 
continue to serve here 7 or 13 or 20 or 30 years. If someone truly 
believes it is morally wrong to serve here more than 6 or 12 years, 
then they should exercise the courage of their convictions and not 
serve one day longer than the term limit they vote for today.
  The fundamental question before us, Mr. Chairman, is whether in our 
democracy we should put trust in the citizen's right to vote. I choose 
to trust the people of this great country, and

[[Page H478]]

not some arbitrary feel-good, press-release, sound-bite constitutional 
amendment that will do damage to the rights of the American citizens.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the committee, for his courtesy 
in yielding to me first. I am about to go lead the House welcome for 
the Speaker of the Polish Parliament.
  Several years ago, my State twice passed term limits by large 
margins, only to have those actions invalidated by the courts. But the 
first legislative day after the voters of my home State expressed their 
support for term limits, I cosponsored legislation to institute a 12-
and-12 constitutional amendment to limit terms of service for the two 
houses of Congress. I think it is a close call whether or not it is in 
the national interest and necessary to institute term limits. 
Nevertheless, I bowed to the views of my constituents and the people of 
my State.
  However, it is very clear to this Member that I could support a 
constitutional term limitation only if such limitations were in the 
form of an amendment to the Constitution so that the congressional 
delegations of all States would be equally affected, and if such 
limitations were reasonable in length and identical for both the House 
and Senate.
  The organization that is referred to as U.S. Term Limits has, with 
extraordinary funding, largely out-of-State funding, and paid 
circulators who frequently misinform voters, pushed their ridiculous 
legislation to require only a 6-year term limit for Members of the 
House of Representatives, while providing for a 12-year limit on the 
Senate.
  This Member simply cannot in good conscience support such a 6-year 
term limit, as it is clearly contrary to the national interest. I might 
have a scarlet letter next to my name on the ballot next year. So be 
it. I am not going to vote against the national interest. I have never 
knowingly done it, and I am not going to start at this time. Despite 
such political threats as the proposed notation on the ballot, this 
Member will not do something that is damaging to the national interest.
  First, 6 years is a totally inadequate length of time for citizens 
elected to the House of Representatives to gain the maximum expertise 
in the legislative process in the House, and to gain sufficient 
experience to be more likely to consistently make informed decisions 
that our Founding Fathers expected from the House of Representatives.
  While over the years people have served in the House of 
Representatives for less than 6 years, it is foolhardy to expect the 
House to adequately perform its duties in this modern age when all 
representatives are limited to a maximum term limit of 6 years. Such an 
arrangement simply denies the country the crucial experience, good 
judgment, and informed action that our Nation and its citizens deserve. 
The House is now confronted by far more complex issues than in the 
early years of the Republic, and a 6-year term limit flies in the face 
of that increasingly complex agenda.
  Second, providing a 6-year term limit for the House and a 12-year 
term limit for the Senate disturbs the delicate balance of power 
between the House and Senate, as established by our U.S. Constitution. 
The implications of this imbalance would probably only become apparent 
over a period of years, but it clearly will lead to an ever more 
serious erosion of power in the House of Representatives vis-a-vis the 
Senate. This Member has yet to hear one good argument for setting 
different limits on total years of service in the House and Senate.
  When one tampers with this delicate system, one shatters not only the 
balance of power between the House and Senate, but also the balance of 
power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of our 
Federal Government.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, a 6-year term limit, by reducing the 
experience and influence of elected Members of the House, will 
dramatically increase the power of nonelected congressional staff over 
the legislative process, not to mention special interests. While this 
Member would be the first to agree that the power of the nonelected 
congressional staff is already an issue of concern, the 6-year term 
limit on the House will only compound that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to consider voting for only one 
approach, if any. That is the McCollum proposal for a 12-year limit on 
both houses of Congress.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding time to me.
  A gimmick, Mr. Chairman; this Chamber is using our precious time on a 
gimmick. While schoolhouses are falling down around this country and 
the homeless are going without shelter and the infirm are going without 
proper medical care, the House will spend its business today debating 
an amendment to the Constitution that would limit the people's choice 
to who shall represent them.
  Do not just take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. We have the most 
imminent Americans over the past 220 years who have opposed plans such 
as the one we are debating today. Alexander Hamilton made it clear that 
the proponents of term limits were shortsighted thinkers. Term limits, 
Hamilton argued, could deprive the Nation of the experience and wisdom 
gained by an incumbent, perhaps just when that experience is needed 
most.
  Mr. Chairman, it is worth noting that much of the greatest 
legislation of our Nation's history was introduced and passed by 
Congresspersons late in their tenure as Members of Congress. Term 
limits would have unseated Daniel Webster and Henry Clay 10 years 
before they forged the 1850 compromise. John Sherman introduced his 
landmark Antitrust Act in his 29th year in Congress. Paul Douglas 
introduced the Voting Rights Act in his 16th year in Congress, and the 
list goes on.
  I will continue further to enlighten our colleagues about the 
detriments of term limits, but we have already spent too much time 
discussing this unnecessary and thoughtless amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this amendment.
  I close by quoting Robert Livingston, not our colleague, but a 
delegate to the New York State Convention to ratify the U.S. 
Constitution in 1788.
  He said:

       The people are the best judges of who ought to represent 
     them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they 
     shall not elect, is to abridge their natural rights. This is 
     an absurd species of ostracism--a mode of prescribing eminent 
     merit, and banishing from stations of trust those who have 
     filled them with the greatest faithfulness.

  I suggest 60 percent has been the turnover. I say to the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], I want these 
Members to know that less than 5 percent of all of the legislation we 
have passed in the last 6 years has come from those 60 percent. I defy 
the chairman and the ranking member to tell the people of America, and 
I will go look up their records, how much legislation they passed in 
their first 6 years.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, during the last campaign I engaged in a series of 
debates with my opponent, and during the final one, a question from the 
audience was the very one we are debating here today: How do the two 
candidates, the incumbent and the challenger, feel about term limits?
  Immediately, of course, the challenger indicated he was in favor of 
it. Surprisingly, the incumbent said that he supports term limits, and 
that the very fact that he was an incumbent and was in a campaign 
demonstrated that he was for term limits, because if the people of the 
district decided to do so, they could end the term of the incumbent; 
namely, me.
  Then I went on to say that although I believe that already in the 
Constitution, by virtue of how we elect Members to the House and to the 
Senate,

[[Page H479]]

there do appear unspoken term limits, nevertheless, I would vote for 
some version of term limits when I returned to the Congress if my term 
was not ended by the term limits of the 2-year campaign in which we 
were then engaged.
  I did so, and I stated that assertion on the basis that I had 
conducted, myself, in my best informal way, a survey of my people to 
determine their overwhelming sentiment, which it turned out to be was 
in favor of term limits.

                              {time}  1300

  So I am caught in a dilemma. I say to them, you already have term 
limits and you can limit my term if you want to right now, but you 
indicate that you want term limits embedded in the Constitution or 
somehow brought into the law of the land.
  So where are we? I have to allow my people back in the district to 
vote again on this issue, to have another voice. I will vote for the 
12-year limitation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me. I 
just came from a telecommunications subcommittee hearing. We are taking 
up the whole idea of spectrum, which to a lot of you may not sound like 
much, but it is the frequencies upon which we broadcast all our radios 
and our televisions.
  We are moving in this day and age toward a digital high-definition 
television which will enable everyone in this country to receive a 
movie quality picture at the same time they will have sound like you 
have never heard before. We had a great exhibition of that today.
  My point in all of this is that this discussion to move toward this 
new industry, which will render 250 million television sets in this 
Nation completely obsolete probably sometime over the next decade, 
began back in the 1980's. And even though I had 24 years as a 
broadcaster before I came to this Congress, I had not dealt with the 
specifics of spectrum law. And so I am very dependent upon those 
Members who have served here, who have been through these debates so 
that they can help to guide me as to where we have been in this Nation 
and where we are headed.
  Likewise in matters of defense, I had a Member tell me that when he 
was on the Committee on National Security, he is retired now, but when 
he was here in Congress and on the Committee on National Security, he 
said a general came up and talked about this very expensive weapons 
system and the need for this system. He said it sounded great. I was 
ready to vote for it, until a grizzled old veteran who had been here in 
Congress for 20 some years stood up and said, general, when you were 
here 10 years ago you were talking against that system. You wanted 
another system. What happened?
  My point is that we need institutional memory and that memory must be 
the elected Members of Congress who are chosen by the people who live 
in their districts, not some phony baloney rewrite of the Constitution 
because we want to dictate to Members of a congressional district who 
they can and cannot send to represent them in this Congress.
  I happen to live in a district in southwestern Pennsylvania where 
there were 150-some-thousand industrial workers displaced. They decided 
after 10 years that they wanted to vote out one Democrat and vote in 
another Democrat. The gentleman from Missouri was here a few moments 
ago. He spoke about the fact that he defeated a 10-term incumbent. That 
is amazing. The system works.
  The bottom line is that the 102d Congress, this was the election held 
in 1990, saw 44 new congressional Representatives elected to this 
institution. That is a 10-percent turnover rate. The 103d Congress, the 
election held back in 1992, in which I came in, was one of the largest 
classes in the modern era; 110 new Members came in, 25-percent turnover 
rate. The 104th Congress, 1994, saw 86 new congressional 
Representatives and the very first time in 40 years the Republicans 
were in control of the House. The people of this Nation did that. That 
was a 20-percent turnover rate.
  The 105th Congress, 1996, saw 74 new Members of Congress being 
elected. That is a 17-percent turnover rate. Term limits at the ballot 
box are working. We do not need this amendment. Overall, of the 435 
Members in this Congress who are serving in the 105th Congress, 315 of 
us have served 10 years or less.
  This is a waste of time. It is a fraud being perpetrated upon the 
American public. Member after Member gets up and says, well, the public 
wants this. When you constantly run and beat up this institution, the 
public does not have a good image of us. They do not undestand that we 
are people who have walked away in many instances from good law 
practices, my job in broadcasting to come here to serve. I cannot 
guarantee you that my wife and I would have agreed 6 years ago or 5 
years ago to run such a campaign, to run a campaign for Congress if I 
knew that I could only be here for 6 years or 8 years or 10 years or 12 
years, rather. I do not know how long I will be here. I do not know how 
long the people of the Fourth District of Pennsylvania will send me 
back here. But that is between me and them. It should be so between the 
other 434 Members of this House and the people of their district.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of term limits for 
Congress. They are necessary to reestablish the citizen legislature, to 
better respond to the needs of citizens in our community, and to end 
what has become an arrogance of incumbency by some who have turned 
public service in this body into a lifetime occupation.
  Being in Washington is not all it is cracked up to be, I can tell 
Members that. But it is vital that if Congress is going to serve the 
American people well, its Members not become stale and immune to the 
will of the people.
  Term limits do not limit the ability to serve the public in all 
manner of ways. By serving here, we can ensure Washington mindset does 
not become the law of the land. Term limits will embolden Members to 
deal with the difficult long-term issues like reforms of Medicare, 
Social Security, rather than wield them for their political advantage. 
This behavior serves neither the interest nor benefit of our 
constituents.
  Term limits, some contend, restrict the will of the public. The fact 
is, Americans across the country overwhelmingly support limiting the 
number of terms a Member of Congress can serve. Already 23 States have 
enacted such limits on their legislators. The people have spoken. We 
must pass term limits so that Members of Congress will no longer be 
tempted to protect their political careers at the expenses of their 
constituents, or the Nation's, best interest.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to term 
limits. Maybe I have spent too much time reviewing the thinking of 
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson but I find the arguments for term 
limits a bit hard to follow.
  Term-limit proponents say they are trying to strengthen democracy. 
Yet in limiting the voters' choices, they are exhibiting a profound 
distrust of democracy. Term-limit proponents say they are populists who 
are trying to return power to the people. Yet term limits take away 
power from the people.
  Term-limit proponents say they are trying to make the Congress more 
responsive. Yet by forcing Members into lame-duck status, term limits 
eliminate the greatest incentive to abide by the public's wishes.
  Term-limit proponents say they are trying to limit the power of 
special interests. Yet by forcing Members to consider their next job 
rather than concentrating on their present one, term limits can only 
increase potential conflicts of interest.
  Term-limit proponents say they are trying to make the Congress a more 
effective institution. Yet by robbing the Congress of institutional 
memory and experience, term limits weaken Congress and strengthen the 
role of less representative branches of Government.

[[Page H480]]

  Term-limit proponents say that the current system has failed us and 
has created an unchanging and unchangeable Congress. Yet more than half 
of the Members of the House, here serving today, were elected in 1992 
or later.
  The contradictions go on and on. Term limits are an attempt to solve 
a problem that does not exist. And they cannot conceivably accomplish 
what their proponents promise. That is why American leaders as far back 
as Madison and Jefferson have rejected term limits.
  Let us show our faith in the Constitution, the American people, and 
the democratic process. Government should expand our options, not limit 
our choices. I say reject term limits. Support the choice of the 
American people.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this proposition. I am tempted 
to just follow the gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde, and just say, 
me too, but I owe my constituents an explanation why I will not vote 
for a constitutional amendment to change the current limit of terms of 
service.
  Yes, there already is a term limit written into the Constitution. 
Article I, section 2 states that the House of Representatives shall be 
composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the 
several States. After that 2-year term, the Member is officially 
retired. If, and only if, that Member is selected again by his or her 
constituents can that Member return to this august body.
  We all know the procedures and the process but it helps to be 
reminded from time to time. I appreciate the passion with which my 
Republican colleagues have fought for this amendment. They believe that 
carrerism has ruined this House. I think we took care of that and 
addressed it by limiting the terms of our Speaker and our chairmen. 
That is appropriate.
  I agree that if Members of the House willfully ignore the wishes of 
the American people on issues that are important to the future of this 
Nation, they should be removed. But I submit that the system works. 
Sometimes slower than we like, sometimes messier than we would prefer, 
but the system works.
  Look at the success of the 104th Congress. We showed that reform is 
possible, that change can happen, that the American people do have the 
ability to work their will. In the 105th Congress, we have 235 Members 
who have been here less than 3 terms. By my count that is a majority.
  The system works to give us new blood, new ideas and new enthusiasm, 
but it also provides us with the wisdom honed by experience. When 
Members like Henry Hyde and John Murtha and Jerry Solomon and Lee 
Hamilton share their insights, we would be unwise not to listen.
  Retiring Members of Congress for no other reason than an artificial 
time limit seems very shortsighted to me. In the final analysis, I 
believe we should have faith in the voters to do the right thing. Term 
limits takes the constitutional choice away from the voters and in my 
view we could do no more damage to the intent of our system of 
government.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time and for his fine work on this legislation. I rise in strong 
support of the term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution offered 
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Texas, the majority 
whip, but I would say to him and those who say that we do not need to 
do this because we can pass the internal reforms to accomplish this, 
yes, but how temporary in nature are they and how does that conflict 
with the very same argument that the opponents of a balanced budget 
amendment, that we are going to take up in this Chamber very soon, 
offer, that we do not need a balanced budget amendment. We can balance 
the budget anyway. Yes, we can and this Congress has shown the 
determination to do that, but how often has that occurred in the last 
several decades and how often has this Congress shown the determination 
to reform itself.
  Term limits brings about those reforms. More importantly, it does 
other things, too. It makes this body more deliberative. If you know 
you only have a certain amount of time here before your time will be 
done, you are going to focus more clearly and more enthusiastically and 
more forcefully on getting the job done rather than the way things work 
in most Congresses, which is, we can always put it off until tomorrow 
or next month or next year or the next Congress. Term limits lets 
Members know, if you are here to get something done for your 
constituents, you have got to do it and got to do it promptly.
  It alters the seniority system so badly needed to make sure that we 
do not elevate Members to positions of leadership and power in this 
Congress simply based upon how long they have been warming a seat but, 
rather, based upon merit and ability. And term limits, again, focuses 
us on that job as well.
  Finally term limits creates a more level playing field for those 
Members who want to serve in this Congress by reducing the ultimate 
benefit that Members of Congress have, the benefit of incumbency in 
election.
  I urge my colleagues to support the term limit amendment to the 
Constitution and let us show the American people that we truly do know 
how to reform this Congress.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Today we have heard many of the Founding Fathers names invoked. 
Earlier the name of George Washington was invoked.

                              {time}  1315

  Now, Washington is looking down on the Chamber from his portrait 
there, and I think it is appropriate that we consider the example of 
George Washington as we deliberate on the issue of term limits.
  It was George Washington who established the example for the 
Presidency of term limits. It was George Washington who, two centuries 
ago next month, left office as the first President of the United 
States. Now, if there was ever anyone in the history of our country who 
could accurately be called the indispensable man, it was George 
Washington, but he himself recognized that no one in public office is 
indispensable.
  I would suggest that the Members of this body reflect on the example 
of George Washington, the example which he has set for leaving office 
and for limiting terms.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume to say to my colleague from Florida that I join in saying 
we should follow the example of George Washington, who did not advocate 
term limits for Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick], for our concluding remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. 
Kilpatrick] for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts for yielding me this time and allowing me this 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to join the chorus of many of my colleagues 
who stand opposed to this amendment. As has been said before I arose 
today, by many Members who came before this forum and to this 
microphone, term limits denigrate people, the people of this country. 
We give the people the ability to make those decisions, and as has been 
seen by several Congresses, and here recently in the last 2 or 3 years, 
the people do have the wisdom and the intelligence to make the correct 
choices in their elected Representatives.
  I want to point out what might not have been said today, and that is 
that

[[Page H481]]

the legislative body of the three branches of Government is the avenue 
that the people have. They cannot get in on the executive, be it 
through the President or their Governor and the President, in this 
instance, and his department heads; through the judiciary they have 
less of an opportunity to participate in the Government.
  It is through the legislative body, to the House and the U.S. Senate, 
that the people can elect or not elect the Representatives of their 
choice and thereby let their voices be heard. So I think we do a 
horrible disadvantage and denigrate the responsibility and intelligence 
of the people of this country when we place a term limit for their 
elected officials.
  Additionally, I think it does not reward the many Members who have 
served this institution, who have the institutional knowledge, and are 
able from that institutional knowledge and hard work to prepare, in a 
bipartisan way, the best public policy that our children need.
  I believe the November 5 election states more profoundly than 
anything we have heard that the people want this Congress to govern. 
They want us to talk about a ``families first agenda'' in a bipartisan 
way. They want us to talk about good jobs. They want us to talk about 
opportunity for their children, security for our seniors.
  I believe if this amendment is defeated it would be in the best 
interest of this country. I believe that we allow the people to 
determine who their Representatives are, and that they ask us to bring 
those issues that are most important to them. I contend, again, that 
those are jobs, they are education; it is environmental quality; it is 
opportunity for our children, security for our seniors.
  As a first-termer, I am a little disheartened that we have not gone 
to those issues; that this is the first issue before the Congress. And 
I understand that the Speaker did make that promise and that it is here 
before us. But I think people want adequate education. I think children 
want opportunity. I think it is good jobs this 105th Congress must 
concern ourselves with.
  This amendment that would limit the terms of the Members of the 
Congress, the Members of this Congress, is not a good one, and I would 
ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle put aside this 
redundant policy. We have heard it over and over again, and we did have 
a vote in the 104th Congress and it was defeated. I suspect today as we 
vote later on it will not receive the two-thirds majority as required 
by the Constitution.
  We have serious work in this 105th Congress, and I hope that we would 
get about it in a bipartisan way. Therefore, I raise my voice and my 
vote with others who have spoken before me today to defeat this 
amendment and let us get to work in the 105th Congress.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire concerning the 
amount of time remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has expired.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized 
for 8\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to 
speak today on this amendment that I have authored, the underlying one, 
House Joint Resolution 2, to limit the terms of Members of the House 
and Senate to 12 years. It is an amendment proposal that garnered 227 
votes in the last Congress, the first time in history we ever had a 
vote on the floor of the House on a constitutional amendment to limit 
terms.
  It reached in that vote a majority, a clear distinct majority, 218 is 
a majority in this House, but it did not get the two-thirds required to 
pass a constitutional amendment, the 290; and it has yet to see the 
light of day in a vote in the Senate, where it will take 67 votes, 
another super majority.
  In the last Congress it was, however, by far and away the 
constitutional amendment proposal for term limits that received the 
most votes, and I think will be clearly demonstrated today continues to 
have the most support and the best chance any time in the foreseeable 
future of receiving the 290 votes it takes to pass a constitutional 
amendment in this body and get it to the States for ratification.
  I think there are two basic reasons why those of us who are for term 
limits, even if we dispute the number of years that there should be in 
those limits, why we are for the term limits. Two critical reasons.
  The first is that I believe, and I think all of us do who support 
term limits, that it is time to end the careerism that exists and has 
existed in Congress for the last few years. By that I mean the tendency 
of too many of our Members to tend to vote for every interest group 
that comes along because they want to get reelected. The desire is 
overwhelming in many cases to be reelected again and again and again.
  I think that syndicated columnist George Will said it best in his 
column that appears in the current issue of Newsweek magazine that is 
on the stands today, when he said:

       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 branch of government.

  It is true as well that there is a second reason. In fact, there are 
several smaller reasons why term limits are important, but the second 
one is pretty darned important. That is because we can have all of the 
rotation we want in the numbers of Members here, three-quarters of the 
body, somebody said, have turned over in the last couple of 
congressional elections, and we can still have the power vested in the 
hands of the few who do stay here and who are not term limited in any 
way. They are the committee chairmen, they are the powers in the 
leadership, they are the ones who control this place, and that is not 
right.
  We need term limits for the same reason that we need to end careerism 
and special interest considerations when it comes to those few Members 
who do stay here.
  Let there be no mistake, better than 90 percent of those who seek 
reelection to the House of Representatives year after year after year 
are reelected. No amount of campaign finance reform will take away the 
inherent powers, that incumbents have to have an advantage in seeking 
reelection to this institution.
  There are those who will say why do I not leave, or why do not some 
of the others of us lead by example and just walk away? Well, I will 
tell my colleagues that voluntary efforts to lead the term limits 
movement will not succeed because there will continue to be Members in 
those States who choose, who do not have term limits, to stay here and 
have the power and be the chairman. And, unfortunately, until we have 
term limits, if someone walks away in 5 or 6 years or whatever, they 
never have a chance to be chairman of the key committees of this body 
or to exercise those things that the members of their district and 
their constituency sent them here to exercise in many instances.
  That is not to say a freshman cannot be influential, that is not to 
say legislation cannot be passed, but it is to say as long as a 
seniority system of some sort exists, and it has historically in every 
legislative body and it will for the foreseeable future in this body, 
there will have to be a term limit in order to be able to be fair in 
that process and, I think, to restore the basic interest of this 
Government.
  Now, let me say that in addition to this, I am particularly concerned 
about what we are voting on in the next couple of hours with respect to 
the type of term limits that are out here. I have proposed limiting the 
terms in the House and Senate in an equal uniform fashion, 12 years in 
the House, 12 years in the Senate, six 2-year terms in the House, two 
6-year terms in the Senate.

  The underlying premise of this is that the power of the two bodies 
should continue to be in balance. We do not want to see, and I do not 
think anybody should see the imbalance that

[[Page H482]]

would result in a 6-year or an 8-year term in the House while we have 
12 years in the Senate, in conference committees and elsewhere.
  I also think if we are talking about 12 versus 6 that we are talking 
about the lack of experience that some of the critics of term limits 
themselves talk about. It seems to me fundamentally, from having been 
here and the experience I have observed, that one needs to be here for 
several years before they are ready for being the chairman of some of 
the major committees, not any subcommittee. The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady], is chairman of a subcommittee now, just in his second 
term; I think may have been even in his first. But when we start 
talking about the longer overview of the Congress and the leadership, I 
think that being here longer than 6 years is very important to the 
running of this body. Twelve years is an appropriate, fair length of 
time to limit both bodies to.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, just for a 
moment, yes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to accuse the 
gentleman of inconsistency in not leaving, because he has articulated 
correctly that view of it, that we should not unilaterally disarm. But 
I would ask him this:
  He and I came here together 17 years ago. He points to the problems 
of careerism and undue vulnerability to special interests if we are 
here too long. Has the gentleman himself succumbed to those problems? 
If not, what in his experience has allowed him to overcome them?
  Because if these things hit us after we have been here for 12 years, 
have they hit the gentleman? If not, can the gentleman tell the rest of 
us how to avoid those problems?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to believe 
they have not hit me. It is possible they have. But I would say there 
are exceptions to every rule.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], are probably examples I would point to of people 
who have been here longer that may not have been hit with the 
afflictions I have described. But I believe the generic rule, the 
general order of things on average is that careerism does afflict all 
too many Members of Congress and it influences the vote, to vote for 
the interests that are required to get them reelected.
  I would be remiss in not commenting on why we are here today voting 
on so many variations on term limits. It would be far preferable to 
vote on a couple and be done with it, but we are voting on these 
multiple numbers because there is an internecine warfare going on 
between some of us who support term limits, and that is not healthy.
  Those of us who want to get to the end of this game and get the 290 
votes necessary to send a constitutional amendment to the States should 
be behind the one proposal, and that is the 12-year proposal in the 
House and Senate, that has the chance of passage in this body, and work 
toward getting there either this Congress or the next.
  But U.S. Term Limits in particular has developed a strategy of 
opposing and proposing these initiatives around the States that has 
been very misleading. They have gotten us to the point where there are 
several different variations, and they say that if we do not vote as a 
Member of Congress from one of those States for precisely their version 
of a 6-year limit, their version or none other, then we will get a 
scarlet letter by our name that will say in the next election, 
``Disregarded or violated voter instruction on term limits.''
  Therefore, there will be Members of this body today who will not vote 
for the 12-year or 12 in both bodies that I have proposed, and will 
only vote for that peculiar little niche that has been carved out by 
their States. If we keep on this path, we will wind up with initiatives 
in several more States, cannot be in all of them because all States do 
not have initiatives, and there will be multiple choices that are here 
for us to vote on where Members will be locked in and feel compelled to 
vote only for their peculiar State's initiative version, and we will 
never get to term limits. We will be gridlocked and the people opposed 
to term limits will prevail.
  That is what amazes me about this organization called U.S. Term 
Limits and why they cannot see that they are on a suicidal mission of 
destruction of the term limits cause by their efforts in this regard. I 
continue to be amazed by it.
  In Idaho alone, one of the States that has this initiative process, 
the text ran 2,286 words. That is four pages of single spaced 
typewritten face. All that appeared on the ballot was 207 words. The 
full text could only be acquired by special request from the Secretary 
of State. Most importantly, the clever wording on the ballot, that is, 
the short title, read only ``Initiative instructing candidates for 
State legislature and U.S. Congress to support congressional term 
limits. Requires statement indicating nonsupport on ballot.''
  It is a very broad statement anybody would support, and 70 percent of 
the American people do. It said nothing about 6 years. If U.S. Term 
Limits were sincere in their drive for the 6-year limit, and it is 
their way or none, they say, why did they not declare up front in the 
title of the initiative that it requires support for only 6 years?
  I urge ``no'' votes on all these amendments out here today. I urge my 
colleagues to vote not for some of these devious methods designed to 
defeat term limits, but to vote for the 12-year limit on both the House 
and Senate. That is the McCollum amendment. That is the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I personally have mixed feeling about term 
limits. The high rate of congressional turnover in the past 10 years 
indicates that term limits are not really necessary. The votes have 
been doing a good job of limiting congressional careers the way it is. 
And I am concerned that term limits could reduce the congressional 
influence of small States like Kentucky.
  However, there is such widespread public support for the idea that I 
am willing to let the people work their will on the issue through the 
ratification process at the State level. For that reason, I did 
cosponsor, House Joint Resolution 2, the term limits resolution which 
limits service in the U.S. Senate to two terms or 12 years and which 
limits service in the House of Representatives to six terms or 12 
years. I do intend to vote for this version of term limits today and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution because it 
is the fairest and most reasonable choice available to us.
  Mr. Chairman, article 1, section 2 of our Constitution reads, ``The 
House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the 
People of the several States * * * ''
  When the Founding Fathers drafted the document that became the 
framework for our Nation they had in mind one of the key principals of 
democracy, the peoples right to choose.
  I have listened to the debate on this issue, I have heard my 
colleagues decry, ``let's give government back to the people * * * '' 
and ``let's put an end to career politicians * * *'' Why don't we stop 
the rhetoric. If you want to give the Government back to the people we 
don't need term limits--we need campaign finance reform because 
democracy is its own best term limiter.
  The Founding Fathers rejected the concept of term limits and that is 
why term limits were not included in the Constitution. Their intention 
was to let democracy take its natural course. I agree with them and 
reject the concept of term limits. If we want fresh ideas and if we 
want to return the Government to the people, let's stop all of the 
rhetoric and put an end to the special interest money that pours into 
political campaigns and level the playing field with real campaign 
finance reform. Then we won't need term limits because the democratic 
process will work as the Founding Fathers intended.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in firm opposition to term limits 
for Members of Congress.
  Since I was elected to Congress, I have been a leading advocate for 
congressional reform. I have supported scheduling reform, cuts to 
committees and staff, and simplifying the operations of the House. But 
we do not need term limits to make changes in Congress.
  The last three elections clearly demonstrate the power of the ballot. 
Almost 80 percent of this body, including myself, was elected after 
1990. Today, 190 Members are serving their first or second terms.
  That is, 43 percent of the House has been elected since 1994. Why 
should we enact constitutionally imposed term limits when a near 
majority of this Chamber does not know what it was like to serve under 
democratic rule? Within my delegation alone, 7 of 10

[[Page H483]]

Members--including myself--have been elected to represent Indiana in 
the 1990's.
  Mr. Chairman, real term limits are at the ballot box, and that is 
where they should stay. The people are the best judge of who ought to 
represent them and they can be trusted to choose their representatives 
without government stepping in to arbitrarily regulate their choice. We 
should not block the prerogative of the American people.
  It is unfortunate that term limits ignore the need for experience in 
Congress. Rather, they will ensure that unelected staff members will 
flourish in an environment where they are more seasoned than their 
employers--those who are directly and singularly accountable to their 
constituents.
  Surely, we do not want to send the wrong message to our Nation's 
brightest and most qualified aspiring public servants who might be 
discouraged from serving their constituencies if firmly imposed term 
limits are in place. Certainly, we do not want to write this 
disincentive into our Constitution.
  The future of this Nation depends on the integrity and caliber of the 
men and women leading it. Important and substantive areas of 
legislation rely on individuals with the wisdom and judgment that comes 
only from experience. We cannot afford to disqualify those who are fit 
to handle the increasingly demanding tasks of elected office.
  Mr. Chairman, the Founding Fathers used the same arguments against 
term limits during the Constitutional Convention. In Federalist Paper 
No. 53, James Madison wrote that a few Members of Congress will possess 
superior talents and will become masters of public business. The 
greater the proportion of new Members, Madison wrote, ``the more apt 
they will be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.''
  Similarly, Alexander Hamilton argued against the concept of delegate 
rotation in Federalist Paper No. 71, asserting that denying the 
citizen's right to choose their officials would ``deprive the new 
government of experienced officials and reduce the incentives for 
political accountability.''
  Certainly, term limits are not an appropriate or effective solution 
to the problems facing our political system. They would undermine a 
cornerstone of our democracy--the right to vote. And for these reasons, 
I urge my colleagues to vote against the ensuing term limit proposals.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 2, the term limits constitutional amendment. We cannot and 
should not shirk our responsibility to act in the best interest of the 
American people by disrespecting the founding document of this Nation--
the U.S. Constitution. This shortsighted legislation will not only fail 
to ensure better representation of the American people in Congress, but 
will cruelly snatch from all Americans their ability to express their 
will through the ballot box.
  The bill before us today, the term limits constitutional amendment, 
attempts to curtail the ability of the American public to choose their 
Representative. It also weakens this Republic by subverting some of the 
most important constitutional principles that represent the foundation 
of this Nation, the electoral process and representative government. 
Such an abdication of congressional responsibility will certainly 
undermine many of our most important efforts to enhance voting rights, 
civil rights, and our democratic system that is the envy of the world.
   Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of this legislation is to amend the 
U.S. Constitution by imposing a lifetime limit of six terms--12 years--
of service and a lifetime limit on Senators of two terms--12 years--of 
service. The measure would be applied prospectively, with only 
elections and service occurring after the constitutional amendment's 
ratification.
  While I agree that Congress should continue to make significant 
strides to enhance service to the people we represent, this proposed 
measure goes well beyond the legitimate objective of making the 
Government more representative. The power the American people have to 
select and elect Representatives to Congress has been granted 
exclusively to the people by the U.S. Constitution and should not be 
abridged.
   Mr. Speaker, a term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution is 
unnecessary. The fact is, term limits already exist. Under the current 
Constitution the people already have the right to limit the term of 
anyone they elect to public office. Every 2 years each Member of the 
House must run for re-election. He or she must then be judged by the 
voters who elected them. It is then that the voters will determine 
whether to end that Representative's term of office or permit them to 
continue to serve. The imposition of this arbitrary term of 12 years 
deprives voters of an elected official who has, in their opinion, 
served their best interests well.
  Establishing an arbitrary 12-year length of service for Members of 
the House and Senate is contrary to the democratic principles upon 
which this Nation is based. So cherished by the American people is the 
right to vote and participate in our representative form of government 
that five historical constitutional amendments have been enacted by the 
Congress to ensure that all Americans have the right to select their 
Representatives in Congress. The 15th amendment, 1870, prohibited 
States from denying the right to vote on account of ``race, color, or 
previous condition of servitude;'' the 19th amendment, 1920, 
enfranchised women; the 24th amendment, 1964, banned poll taxes; the 
26th amendment, 1971, directed States to allow qualified citizens who 
were age 18 or older to vote; and finally, the equal protection and due 
process clauses of the 14th amendment, 1868, came to be read as 
preventing States from enacting suffrage laws that conflict with 
fundamental principles of fairness, liberty, and self-government.

  Term limits will upset the delicate balance of powers crafted in the 
U.S. Constitution. In addition to taking power from the American people 
the term limits constitutional amendment will transfer a significant 
portion of this constitutional power to the President and the 
judiciary. The weakening of Congress by arbitrarily prohibiting our 
most experienced legislators from serving this Nation in the Congress 
is unwise and tips the balance of powers against the legislature of 
this Nation.
  The great constitutional significance of the separation of powers 
cannot be questioned. In his famous Myers versus United States, 272 
U.S. 52, 1926, dissent, Justice Louis D. Brandeis said:

       The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the 
     Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude 
     the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid 
     friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident 
     to the distribution of the governmental powers among three 
     departments, to save the people from autocracy.

  Mr. Speaker, I must also stress that the benefits of term limits are 
greatly exaggerated. Without any term limit constitutional amendment 
Congress receives regular transfusions of ``new blood.'' If we look 
beyond the re-election rates on a Congress-by-Congress basis, we see 
that over 60 percent of the current House Members were initially 
elected in 1990 or later. If term limits of 12 years in the House and 
Senate were in place, nearly half of the current Congress would have 
been ineligible to serve when the 105th Congress convened.
  The devaluation of experience in the Congress would not only be ill 
advised, it would be irresponsible. We cannot and should not experiment 
with the Constitution, Americans' right to vote, or the stability and 
security of this Nation to satisfy a campaign promise.
  I would also like to add that the historical record for term 
limitations is not supported by a review of constitutional history, 
either. It is clear that the Founding Fathers of this Nation believed 
that term limits were neither necessary or appropriate, and those who 
did seek such limits expressed a belief that the Constitution itself 
needed to be fundamentally changed also.
  This lack of historical support for term limitations can also be 
found in the Founders' transition from the Articles of Confederation to 
the Constitution as we know it today. Although term limits were 
included in the Articles of Confederation, they were wisely 
specifically excluded by the Founders of this Nation from the 
Constitution. The historical record simply does not support the 
incorporation of term limits into the U.S. Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unsurpassed in its compromise of the 
people's right to representative government and the balance of powers 
in our Nation. With very little opportunity for open hearing in the 
105th Congress, and with limited debate, this measure has been placed 
before us. A measure of this kind requires detailed analysis of the 
impact it may have on the American people, and the greatest pillars of 
the American Republic: The voting franchise and the separation of 
powers--but no such review has, or will, take place. In the current 
rush to force this bill through the House, the will of the American 
people and the Constitution I have sworn to uphold will certainly be 
compromised. I urge my colleagues to join with me and vote against this 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it's with great disappointment that we 
start the 105th Congress with an ill-conceived amendment to the 
Constitution to limit congressional terms. Term limits does nothing to 
create more jobs, nothing to increase our standard of living, and 
nothing to clean up the campaign finance laws. If Republicans were 
really interested in

[[Page H484]]

dealing with the advantages of incumbency, we would be voting on 
campaign finance reform, not term limits, as the very first measure we 
consider this Congress.
  I don't believe the proponents are as eager to pass this measure as 
they would have us believe. Although many Members advocate term limits, 
they oppose applying the limits immediately to themselves. As Chairman 
Hyde has so eloquently, stated this is like ``the famous prayer of St. 
Augustine who said, `Dear God, make me pure, but no now.'' When 94-
year-old, 8-term Senator Strom Thurmond can claim to support term 
limits, you know we have a serious credibility gap on this issue within 
the Republican Party.
  And while this may be a radical idea, I continue to have faith in the 
scheme of Government laid out in our Constitution when the Founding 
Fathers rejected term limits. Alexander Hamilton got it right when he 
wrote term limits ``would be a diminution of the inducements to good 
behavior * * * [and deprive] the community of the advantages of * * * 
experience gained in office.''
  I also continue to have faith in the fundamental good judgment of the 
American voters, who already have the power to impose term limits. 
Congressmen must face the voters every 2 years and Senators every 6 
years. Denying these voters the right to elect the person they think 
best represents their interests turns the very principal of democracy 
on its head.
  I would also remind those who support term limits that the notion of 
a career Congress which they decry so vehemently is an absolute myth. 
Recent congressional turnover has been incredibly high, more than one-
half of the current Members of the House were elected within the last 4 
years.
  The best safeguard we have against rampant special interest abuse are 
Members who have been around long enough to know the ropes and know 
where the bodies are buried. If the voters understood that the effect 
of term limits would be massive transfer of power to congressional and 
executive branch staff as well as corporate and foreign lobbyist, they 
wouldn't be quite so enamored of the idea. Given a choice between an 
elected official beholden to the voters and an unelected bureaucrat or 
lobbyist, I think the voters would prefer to place their trust in the 
elected official every time.
  House Joint Resolution 2 trivializes the Constitution and belittles 
those who would serve their country by belonging to this body. I urge 
the Members to oppose this short-sighted constitutional amendment.
  I am attaching an article I have written recently describing my 
concern with term limits and other proposed amendments to the 
Constitution we are expected to vote on this Congress.

                    [From the Nation; Feb. 24, 1997]

                             Make No Amends

                         (By John Conyers, Jr.)

       The 105th Congress is expected to consider as many as seven 
     separate constitutional amendments, including proposals to 
     prohibit flag burning, provide for victims' rights, eliminate 
     automatic birthright citizenship, balance the budget, require 
     a supermajority vote to increase taxes, limit Congressional 
     terms and permit school prayer.
       Amending the Constitution is the most serious--and 
     irreversible--action Congress can take. Before approving any 
     constitutional revision, we should assure ourselves that the 
     amendment is fully justified; will not have adverse, 
     unintended consequences; is fully enforceable; and is 
     consistent with our constitutional values. Unfortunately, the 
     amendments being considered in this Congress are motivated 
     more by partisan politics than by sound policy 
     considerations.
       Advocates of a flag desecration amendment cannot point to 
     outbreak of disrespect for the flag warranting constitutional 
     action. Studies indicate that in all of American history, 
     from the adoption of the U.S. flag in 1777 through the 
     Supreme Court's first flag desecration decision in 1989, 
     there have been fewer than forty-five reported incidents of 
     flag burning. By propounding a constitutional amendment under 
     these circumstances, we succeed only in trivializing the 
     Constitution.
       Similarly, given that twenty-nine states have already 
     amended their Constitutions to protect crime victims, there 
     is no compelling justification for a federal victims' rights 
     amendment. Although victims' rights groups argue that a 
     constitutional remedy is necessary to overcome a supposed 
     conflict between these state laws and a defendant's right to 
     due process, to date no federal appellate court has found 
     such inconsistency to exist.
       Repealing the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship 
     clause illustrates the problem of unintended consequences. 
     Tying the citizenship status of children to their parents 
     creates a permanent underclass of people having no national 
     allegiance; those born in the United States would be unable 
     to report legal abuses for fear of deportation. It's no 
     wonder that in her last official speech as chairwoman of the 
     Immigration Commission, the late Barbara Jordan declared, 
     ``To deny birthright citizenship would derail [the] engine of 
     American liberty.''
       Constitutional amendments requiring a balanced budget and 
     two-thirds majority to increase taxes threaten to create 
     constitutional ``rights'' with no meaningful remedy. It's 
     impossible to identify which branch of government, if any, 
     would be empowered to enforce the amendments. The amendments' 
     meaning is also opaque: Would they apply to bills reducing 
     tax revenues in some years but increasing them in others? 
     What's the meaning of the supermajority tax amendment's 
     exception for ``de minimis'' tax increases?
       The term limits amendment contradicts what is perhaps our 
     most fundamental constitutional principle: majority rule. 
     There is little difference between forcing citizens to vote 
     for a particular candidate and denying them the ability to 
     vote for that same person. Instead of giving us more 
     responsive ``citizen legislators,'' term limits are more 
     likely to result in a transfer of power from elected 
     representatives to unelected Congressional staff, federal 
     bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists.
       Finally, the school prayer amendment directly undermines 
     the First Amendment's establishment clause. Although the 
     amendment purports to prevent states from compelling students 
     to join in prayer, it wouldn't limit the authority of the 
     schools or teachers themselves, who could begin every day 
     with the delivery of a sectarian prayer before a captive 
     audience of children. Any student gathering could become a 
     competitive ground for students to organize and protest their 
     religious views, irreparably blurring the separation of 
     church and state.
       Given these clear-cut policy problems, why is Congress 
     contemplating the most far-reaching constitutional overhaul 
     since the very first Congress approved the Bill of Rights? 
     Proponents can only fall back on a series of polls indicating 
     public support for these dubious propositions. But the polls 
     inevitably fail to highlight the many difficulties inherent 
     in the amendments.
       For example, support for a balanced budget amendment drops 
     precipitously when the public is informed it will jeopardize 
     our commitment to Social Security. And flag burning and 
     school prayer amendments are far less popular when voters 
     realize they would result in a first-ever modification of the 
     First Amendment. At a time when a majority of the public 
     believes Newt Gingrich should step down as Speaker, polls 
     would seem to be a thin reed to justify these radical 
     constitutional changes.
       Bumper-sticker politics aside, now is not the time to 
     substitute poll-driven constitutional amendments for serious 
     legislative deliberation. Nothing in any of the amendments 
     being considered in this Congress would create a single job, 
     prevent a single crime, educate a single child or clean up a 
     single environmental waste site. The Constitution has 
     provided us with the most enduring and successful democracy 
     in history, and unless we're absolutely convinced of the need 
     for change, we ought to give our current political system the 
     benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I am 
forced to return home to Alaska. During my absence the House will again 
take up the important issue of term limits. On two occasions, Alaskan 
voters voiced and voted their support for term limits. In the November 
1996 election, a majority of Alaskan voters passed a ballot initiative 
requiring Congress and the State legislature to support a very specific 
term limit measure.
  In response to previous calls for term limits by Alaskans, I 
supported a term limits amendment to the Constitution when it came to 
the House floor in the 104th Congress. House Joint Resolution 73, 
offered by Congressman McCollum would have limited congressional term 
limits. I followed the wishes of my fellow Alaskans by supporting House 
Joint Resolution 73. I had planned to again follow the wishes of my 
constituents by supporting a term limits proposal this week. However, 
due to this family emergency, I will be at home in Alaska when this 
vote takes place.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to any attempt to 
limit the terms of Members of Congress. Some of the most well-meaning; 
thoughtful, and patriotic individuals of our day are strongly in 
support of term limits, inside and outside of this body. We are 
reminded that some polls tell us a majority of our fellow citizens, at 
least in principle, support term limits.
  Nevertheless, it is our responsibility, as guardians of the people's 
liberties, to oppose such undemocratic and self-destructive steps 
backward.
  I believe that the concept of limiting the number of terms that 
elected officials may serve is against the spirit and intent of our 
form of Government. Our Founding Fathers debated the issue of including 
term limits in our original Constitution, but rejected the idea as 
undemocratic. It is just as undemocratic now as it was 210 years ago.
  American history bears out the wisdom of that decision at our 
constitutional convention. Some of the giants during the formulative 
years of our Republic devoted their lives to public service because 
they were not encumbered by term limitations. Henry Clay, excepting 
those periods that he served in the cabinet, served in both Houses of 
Congress from

[[Page H485]]

1810 until his death in 1852--a period of over 40 years. Daniel 
Webster, Thomas Hart Benton, and John Quincy Adams are just a few other 
great Americans whose greatest contributions would have been lost to 
all of us had they been forced to retire due to term limits.
  Most people would agree that excluding women, blacks, Jews, or 
Catholics from the right to seek office would be unacceptable. Wouldn't 
disqualifying Americans from seeking office simply because they were 
previously elected equally discriminatory? Term limits also 
discriminate against citizens who wish to vote for whoever they choose.
  Supporters of term limits contend that such an innovation would make 
elected officials less concerned about the wishes of the people. I 
believe that this would be highly undesirable and contrary to our form 
of government. The House of Representatives is supposed to be 
Representative--the people's house. Conversely, public officials would 
be far more likely to cater to special interests--and potential 
employers--if they did not have to worry about justifying their actions 
and votes to their constituency. Experience in office helps legislators 
to discern self-serving arguments of special interests as well as the 
validity of constituent concerns. Bureaucrats, the unelected arm of the 
government, would become even more powerful and arrogant, knowing full 
well that they would still be around after the limit of those elected 
to represent the people is passed.
  It seems to me that those who argue in favor of term limits believe 
in the proposition that the American people are simply not smart enough 
to determine when an elected official has outlived his or her 
usefulness, or to determine when an official has ceased to be 
representative.
  I strongly believe that this is not the case, as evidenced by the 
Members of Congress who were defeated, not just in last year's 
elections but in every election, in many cases by challengers who spent 
far less money than they. I continue to believe that, in the vast 
majority of cases, the people know perfectly well what is best for them 
and are fully competent to act accordingly.
  Some contend that more outstanding candidates could be recruited if 
term limits were put into effect. I believe the opposite is true. I 
have been opposed in each and every election in which I was a candidate 
since I first entered public Life. However, what would be the point in 
opposing an incumbent if his or her terms were limited? It would be 
difficult to recruit outstanding candidates to run for limited terms, 
and why bother running against Democrats if you know their days are 
numbered? More likely, all incumbents would be unopposed until their 
limit is reached.
  I believe that the issues brought up during the course of a campaign 
debate are an essential part of representative government and that 
limiting terms would discourage, rather than encourage, new people from 
participating in these campaigns. I also question how many outstanding 
persons would be willing to give up their career to run for public 
office if they are aware that their term in public life would be 
limited.
  The need for term limits to bring new blood into public life is a 
bogus argument. In fact, less than 20 percent of today's Congress has 
been serving for more than 10 years, and less than 10 percent for more 
than 20. Would you invest in a company whose executive board had that 
great a turnover? wouldn't you consider that experience counts?
  Over 40 years ago, a constitutional amendment was ratified which 
limited our President to 2 terms. many of the same arguments used in 
favor of term limitations today were used then to support limiting a 
President to two terms. It was contended that limiting terms would free 
our Presidents from political concerns and decrease the influence of 
special interest groups.
  After 40 years of experience, can anyone honestly argue that 
President Eisenhower, President Reagan, or President Nixon performed 
better in their second term than in their first? Remember that it was 
in Reagan's second term that the Iran-Contra scandal took place, and it 
was in Nixon's second term that he was forced to resign under threat of 
impeachment. Incidentally, prior to his retirement, President Reagan 
stated that he had come to the conclusion that the 22d amendment was a 
mistake; not because he coveted a third term for himself, but because 
he had come to the conclusion that the people should have the right to 
choose whether or not to retire a President on election day.
  Personally, I am gravely concerned that the day may come when our 
Nation is in the midst of a dire emergency and we may find ourselves 
forced to change Presidents at an inappropriate time. I believe that 
the 22d amendment to the Constitution, limiting Presidents to two 
terms, should be abolished.
  With over half the electorate sitting at home on election day, I 
believe we should be more concerned about educating and encouraging the 
public to vote intelligently and putting into effect genuine election 
reform to encourage more qualified people to become involved in the 
political process, to participate in primary elections, and to make 
informed intelligent decisions on election day. Then we wouldn't need 
any artificial reforms like term limitations to do the job.
  Today, we are being asked to turn back the clock on 210 years of 
progress. After 2 centuries of expanding the electorate and the rights 
of citizens, these amendments being proposed would restrict the rights 
of Americans to make free and open choices regarding their 
representatives, and which would absolve them of the responsibility of 
remaining alert and active.
  Mr. Speaker, term limits are more than just a bad idea. They are a 
threat to our great system of a representative government. Let us 
reject these amendments and get on with the business of governing.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a constitutional 
amendment to establish congressional term limits. I have been a long-
time advocate for term limits, in fact, long before the movement became 
popular. I would also like to mention a word of appreciation for 
perhaps the most effective voice for term limits in this Chamber, my 
friend from Florida, Bill McCollum. Bill has been a leader of the 
modern-day effort to limit terms of service for Members of Congress.
  In 1985, I introduced my first proposed amendment to limit 
congressional service to 6 years in the House and 6 years in the Senate 
and I reintroduced that proposal biennially through the 104th Congress. 
I know that some other popular term limit proposals promote a 6-year 
limit, but I believe that it is important to maintain an equal number 
of years of service in both Houses of Congress, lest the other body 
gain an inordinate amount of power. However, during consideration of 
term limits in the last Congress, my version was not made in order by 
the Committee on Rules. Given that fact, and the number of proposals by 
members of the committee with jurisdiction, I decided not to 
reintroduce my term limits proposal this year.
  The proliferation of term limit constitutional amendment proposals, 
combined with the many State initiatives, has certainly not made for a 
uniformly-applied term limits proposal. We can end the debate on the 
best way to enact term limits by marshaling all of our resources to 
pass a constitutional amendment.
  I appreciate that honest men will have legitimate differences on this 
issue. Some of our colleagues oppose term limits. However, the lack of 
success of term limits is not the result of the battle with term limit 
opponents. Instead, the fratricidal battles among term limit supporters 
have prevented the success of the cause. Sadly, it has been the actions 
of one term limits group in particular, US Term Limits, which, through 
their stubborn and often irrational attacks on term limit supporters, 
have done significant harm to the movement. Indeed, given the fact that 
we could not gain a two-thirds majority in the last Congress, it made 
no sense for this group to vilify term limits supporters, when it was 
more important to gain more supporters.
  While I have preferred the 6 and 6 proposal, I voted for many 
different versions of term limits last year. I believe that the goal 
should be to gain the necessary majority in support of some form of 
term limits whether it is the one I prefer or not. The consensus 
version may not be the favorite of all supporters, however, even a 12-
year limit is obviously better than current law.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 2 
so that the States may debate and ratify this proposed amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is considered read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 2 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 2

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. No person who has been elected for a full term 
     to the Senate two times shall

[[Page H486]]

     be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. No 
     person who has been elected for a full term to the House of 
     Representatives six times shall be eligible for election to 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``Section 2. No person who has served as a Senator for more 
     than three years of a term to which some other person was 
     elected shall subsequently be eligible for election to the 
     Senate more than once. No person who has served as a 
     Representative for more than one year shall subsequently be 
     eligible for election to the House of Representatives more 
     than five times.
       ``Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it 
     shall have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
     of the several States within seven years from the date of its 
     submission to the States by the Congress.
       ``Section 4. No election or service occurring before this 
     article becomes operative shall be taken into account when 
     determining eligibility for election under this article.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendments shall be in order except those specified 
in House Report 105-4, which shall be considered in the order 
specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
may be considered notwithstanding the adoption of a previous amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by a 
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. If 
more than one amendment is adopted, only the one receiving the greater 
number of affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In 
the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, only the 
last amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes shall be 
considered as finally adopted.

                              {time}  1330

  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, one, postpone until a 
time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and, two, reduce to 5 
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed 
question that follows another electronic vote without intervening 
business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
  The Chair would remind the Members that it is the intention of the 
Chair, should a rollcall be demanded and sustained, that the Chair will 
cluster the vote on these amendments. At the present time that cluster 
is three, three, and three.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I 
understood. So if rollcalls are requested on every one of these, and 
since the purpose of having them in there is so Members can be 
recorded, one assumes that there will be rollcalls, it is the Chair's 
intention to call the first set of rollcalls after the first three 
amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the present intention, after the first three.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 105-4.


   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hutchinson:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following: That the following article is proposed as an 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which 
     shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
     Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several States:

                 ``Congressional Term Limits Amendment

       ``Section A. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of the Congressional Term Limits Amendment no 
     person who has held the office of United States 
     Representative or who then holds the office shall serve for 
     more than two additional terms.
       ``Section B. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of the Congressional Term Limits Amendment no person who has 
     held the office of United States Senator or who then holds 
     the office shall serve more than one additional term.
       ``Section C. This article shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several states.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] and a Member opposed will each control 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, my State of Arkansas is one of the 9 
States that adopted ballot initiatives dealing with term limits this 
past November. On November 5 of last year, the voters of Arkansas 
overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative setting forth the exact 
text of a proposed constitutional amendment limiting Members of 
Congress to three 2-year terms, for a total of 6 years, and members of 
the Senate to two 6-year terms for a total of 12 years.
  Under this initiative a Member of Congress from Arkansas is 
instructed to support the exact provisions spelled out in the 
initiative and to vote against any inconsistent proposal. During the 
Committee on the Judiciary markup of House Joint Resolution 2, I 
offered the exact language of the Arkansas ballot initiative. 
Unfortunately, the amendment that I offered did not receive a majority 
of votes. The voters of Arkansas have specifically detailed the 
constitutional amendment they want, and out of respect for the people 
of Arkansas I am offering this substitute amendment, and out of respect 
for them I will also vote against any version that does not comply with 
the Arkansas language.
  Therefore, I will vote against the bill of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum], not because I am opposed to term limits but because 
this particular resolution does not comply with the term limit 
instructions approved by the voters and the people of Arkansas. I will 
also vote against the other versions offered on the floor today because 
they too violate the Arkansas language.
  As a longtime supporter of the concept of term limits, it was my 
intent as a new Member of this body to support and vote for all term 
limit measures including 6-year, 8-year, and 12-year limits so as to 
maximize the prospects for meaningful term limits becoming law. 
However, I am instructed by the Arkansas law and will vote accordingly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as long as I have been here, I have supported term 
limits. I have never once voted against term limits at any time.
  Today I have to rise in support of the Hutchinson term limits 
substitute and tell my constituents and this body that I am going to 
vote against some of the term limits. The Hutchinson amendment is the 
exact language that passed as an amendment to the Arkansas State 
Constitution in the general election this past fall, and so I am duty 
bound to support this. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the Hutchinson amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a longtime and ardent supporter of 
congressional term limits. The gentleman from South Carolina has worked 
tirelessly on this issue and deserves this body's appreciation for his 
efforts.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time, and I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of this 
measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arkansas has a good bill 
that requires a limit of three 2-year terms and

[[Page H487]]

really is the preferable approach. I will be taking a slightly 
different approach than what he just described, in that I will be 
voting for every term limit bill that is on the floor today because I 
think that if we are not successful in getting a three 2-year term 
limit, it is rational then to go forward and try to get the Tillie 
Fowler 8-year limit, and if we fail on that, then we should go forward 
to try to get the Bill McCollum 12-year limit in the House and 12-year 
limit in the Senate. That is the approach that I will be taking. But I 
should point out that most of the American people seem to believe that 
6 years would be the preferable limit.
  As you can see here, based on surveys of the American people, three 
terms, three 2-year terms, 6 years, is supported by 82 percent of the 
American people. Six terms, or 12 years, is supported by 14 percent of 
the American people. So the three 2-year term bills and the various 
ones that will be on the floor today I think are preferable.
  However, I think it is very important to point out that the goal here 
is to get term limits. So if we do not vote for three 2-year terms, we 
should then vote for Tillie Fowler's bill that calls for four 2-year 
terms. And if we are not successful there, then we fall back to the 
next position, which is Bill McCollum's bill calling for six 2-year 
terms. It seems to me that the most rational approach is to attempt to 
get term limits and to move through the process to see which one can 
garner the most votes.
  I certainly hope by the end of the day that we have risen above the 
227 votes that we got last time and demonstrate momentum in this 
matter. If we have not, then I think there is a lesson for us in the 
term limit effort to try to figure out how to come together on this 
rather than splinter and thereby divide up our vote. I rise in support 
of Mr. Hutchinson's bill. I think it would be a very preferable 
approach, and I certainly hope that it passes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a new experience for us. I have seen many rules 
in the 17 years I have, I blush to admit, served in this body, sinking 
no doubt deeper into the morass of special interestism with each 
passing year, but I have never before seen a rule where the governing 
principle was alphabetical order. We are being presented with 
amendments today, as one of the members of our staff said, it is the 
rollcall of the States. The order, if Members will look at it, you are 
getting it in alphabetical order. When the majority has to resort to 
alphabetical order to bring some structure to the chaos they have 
brought to the floor, I think that is an indication of some 
intellectual weakness.
  I also have a proposal, I am tempted but probably prohibited by the 
germaneness rule to offer a recommittal motion, which says that there 
will be a test for the Members on the seven amendments issued by each 
State to see what the differences are. I have to say that asking people 
what are the real differences among the seven separate amendments is of 
such arcane proportions that it would probably be ruled inappropriate 
to put on the Scholastic Aptitude Test as too trivial. We are going to 
be taking the time of the House to vote on seven variants.
  People talk about term limits as an antidote to incumbent protection. 
Here we have term limits as a form of incumbent protection. Every 
State's Members get to vote on their State's term limits so they make 
them feel better and they do not get the scarlet letter.
  I think this is a problem which indicates the fundamental weakness at 
the core of this. Where you have a principle that rises to the level of 
constitutional relevance, you do not have to do it in alphabetical 
order. You do not have to bend over backwards so people will know the 
difference between you and Hester Prynne. You do not have to introduce 
into the House a degree of parliamentary flip-flops and hair splitting 
that is unbecoming.
  But there is also a fundamental intellectual problem here for the 
supporters of term limits. Some are going to vote for 6 and not 12, 
some are going to vote for 12 and not 8, some are going to vote for 8 
and not 6. I do have a parenthetical question, Mr. Chairman: Whatever 
happened to 10? We have 6 and we have 8 and we have 12. Apparently 
there is some numerological fettish on the majority side which makes 10 
terra infirma because we get 6 and we get 8 and we get 12. I cannot 
find any logical principle to overlook 10.
  But there is this dilemma. Members on the majority side who favor 
this and some on the minority side who favor it have invoked the 
referendum. What they have said is you must be for this because there 
is a referendum. But we have all these different referenda and if you 
live by the referendum, you die by the referendum. If in fact we are as 
a body to be governed by the referendum, then this fails, because there 
is no 38-State mandate. That is your problem.
  There is also one other problem with the referendum that I want to 
address now, although I will have a chance to address it when variant 
plus-and-minus and up-and-down and when we get into the B's and the C's 
and the D's and the S's. The problem we have is this. What about the 
argument that while it is a democratic right to elect your 
Representatives, in some States the people have voted to do away with a 
democratic right?
  I think the answer is very clear. My right as a citizen to go to the 
polls every 2, 4, and 6 years and have my vote counted is my right and 
it is not at the service of some majority that is willing to do less. 
Voters, and we have the paradox, as I said we had it in Algeria, we 
have had it elsewhere, where majorities may be prepared to vote away 
their rights. The majority has no right to vote to diminish the 
democratic ballot right of any individual. My right as a citizen and, 
more importantly, the people in my district and elsewhere who as 
citizens want the unrestricted freedom to vote for whoever they think 
is best every 2 years, no matter what, ought not to be constrained 
because the majority do not want to exercise that right. If you in the 
majority do not want to exercise your right, do not exercise it. But it 
is not democratic theory to empower a majority to vote to diminish the 
votes of a minority.

  The right of the people every 2 years for the House, every 6 years 
for the Senate, to go to the polls and pick the individual that they 
wish to see elected ought to be unconstrained. I do have to say in 
closing, Mr. Chairman, that I am struck, and I appreciated my friend 
from Florida, who as I said is a man of remarkable consistency and has 
been for a 12-year term limit in each of the 17 years he has served 
here. Of course, he is not up to the gentleman from South Carolina in 
the other body who for 50 some odd years has been for a 12-year term 
limit, I gather, or maybe he is for a 6-year term limit. Maybe he is 
showing his fealty to the principle nine times over, because the 
Senator from South Carolina is now in his ninth 6-year term limit.
  I think we ought to, Mr. Chairman, vote all these down so the right 
of the voters to untrammeled democracy remains unchallenged.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire concerning time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] has 30 
seconds remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] has expired.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I 
believe that what the Arkansas voters have done is the essence of 
democracy. They have demonstrated themselves at the ballot box, they 
have indicated they want to instruct their congressional leaders in 
this regard, and my vote today and my actions today are not because of 
any supposed scarlet letter, but my actions are out of respect for the 
voters of Arkansas who have given these instructions, and for that 
reason I have offered this amendment and will cast my vote today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to efforts to limit 
Representatives to a mere 6 years--or three terms--in office. The 
proposal, like all of the other State-inspired substitutes, would make 
it impossible to run this institution in an orderly and intelligent 
fashion.
  If a 6-year limit had been law, none of the leaders selected by the 
Republican Party--not Majority Leader Armey, not Speaker Gingrich, and 
indeed not a single Republican committee chair--would have been 
eligible for office, let alone to assume their leadership roles this 
Congress.

[[Page H488]]

  And if 6-year limits are such a good idea, why didn't the Republicans 
choose any committee chairs from among those Members serving in their 
first three terms? I think the answer is obvious--a 6-year term limit 
does not make sense. It would severely distort and disfigure the 
legislative process and recast our two-century-old Constitution so 
significantly that its authors would no longer recognize the first 
branch of Government. The jockeying for power that would occur in this 
place under a three-term cap would be unprecedented.
  A six-year limit would create a Congress of lame ducks and lead to an 
even greater proliferation of wealthy candidates who could afford to 
abandon their business careers for a few years. And the few Members who 
were not independently wealthy would be forced to spend most of their 
time currying favor with special interests so that they could further 
their postcongressional career opportunities.
  This proposal would severely limit the Members' opportunity to garner 
the experience needed to master the many important substantive areas of 
Federal legislation. Issues relating to civil rights, intellectual 
property, Federal procurement, communications, intelligence, labor, and 
income tax policy--to name a few--are all highly complex and sensitive. 
A 6-year term limit would significantly diminish the ability and 
incentives for Members to understand and positively influence 
legislation in these areas.
  The Members would have no choice but to turn to career staffers and 
bureaucrats. The result would be a massive shift of power from elected 
officials to unelected legislative and executive branch staffers and 
lobbyists.
  I urge the Members to reject this ill-considered proposal.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, further proceedings on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 105-4.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would it be in order for the Chair to 
explain the difference between amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 2?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. The Chair 
does not interpret the substance of amendments and would advise the 
gentleman to listen to the debate.

                              {time}  1345


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. mcinnis

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. McInnis:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1: No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of this amendment no person who has held the 
     office of United States Representative or who then holds the 
     office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       ``Section 2: No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve for 
     more than one additional term.
       ``Section 3: This amendment shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
     ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
     several States.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47 the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. McInnis] and a Member in opposition, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis]
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, from the State of Colorado and in alphabetical order on 
November 5, 1996, the voters of Colorado approved a ballot initiative 
which signified their support for an exact, and I stress the word 
exact, that is in the constitutional amendment congressional term limit 
amendment; they wanted to see added to the State of Colorado's 
constitution and then in subsequent steps to the U.S. Constitution. 
Furthermore, voters, Colorado voters, stated unequivocally; that is, 
the voters, the majority of the voters that voted, that if a Member of 
Congress from Colorado failed to vote against any change; any change is 
the words used; addition or modification to the exact congressional 
term limit amendment, that the Secretary of State should determine that 
that Member of Congress had disregarded voters' instruction on term 
limit. Following Colorado voters' call to action, i.e., those voters 
who voted and those voters who voted in the majority, I am offering an 
amendment which mirrors the exact text of the Colorado congressional 
term limits amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the language of the Colorado 
ballot initiative as well as a letter dated February 12, 1997, from the 
attorney general of the State of Colorado a paragraph of which in 
particular is pertinent which says:
  Our opinion is that amendment No. 12, speaking of this particular 
amendment, does not allow our delegation, speaking of the Colorado 
delegation, to vote for minor modifications, nor does it allow for a, 
quote, substantial compliance, unquote. Section 1 of amendment 12 
states that, quote, the exact language for addition to the U.S. 
Constitution follows, unquote. The terms, quote, exact language, 
unquote, are seldom used in constitutional or statutory drafting. They 
unambiguously require strict compliance.
  So, with that, I submit both of these documents for the Record.
  The documents referred to are as follows:

         State of Colorado, Department of Law, Office of the 
           Attorney General,
                                    Denver, CO, February 12, 1997.
     Re Colorado's ``Amendment 12,'' Colorado Voter Instructions 
         on Term Limits.
     Hon. Dan Schaefer,
     Rayburn House Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Scott McInnis,
     Cannon House Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Schaffer,
     Cannon House Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen: I understand there has been some 
     disagreement over the interpretation of Colo. Const. art. 
     XVIII, Sec. 12 (``Amendment 12''), Colorado's voter 
     instructions to state and federal legislators concerning a 
     federal constitutional amendment on term limits. 
     Specifically, the issue is whether our congressional 
     delegation can vote for ``minor'' modifications to the 
     ``Congressional Term Limits Amendment'' contained in section 
     1 of Amendment 12 and avoid the designation ``Disregarded 
     Voter Instruction Term Limits.''
       Our opinion is that Amendment 12 does not allow our 
     delegation to vote for minor modifications, nor does it allow 
     for ``substantial compliance.'' Section 1 of Amendment 12 
     states that ``[t]he exact language for addition to the United 
     States Constitution follows. . . .'' The terms ``exact 
     language'' are seldom used in constitutional or statutory 
     drafting. They unambiguously require strict compliance.
       In addition, Section 5(b) establishes the mechanism by 
     which ``[n]on-compliance with voter instruction is 
     demonstrated.'' Among other things, non-compliance occurs if 
     a member of our delegation ``fails to vote against any 
     change, addition or modification.'' Again, this language 
     unambiguously requires strict compliance.
       Lastly, Section 5(a) demonstrates that strict compliance is 
     required by effectively creating a presumption that the 
     ``Disregarded Voter Instruction Term Limits'' ``shall 
     appear'' unless compliance is established by ``clear and 
     convincing evidence.''
       While Attorney General Norton and I are strong supporters 
     of term limits, it is our opinion that Amendment 12 requires 
     strict adherence and that substantial compliance is 
     unacceptable.

[[Page H489]]

       If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to 
     call me.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard A. Westfall,
     Solicitor General.
                                  ____

         State of Colorado, Department of Law, Office of the 
           Attorney General,
                                    Denver, CO, February 12, 1997.

                            Fax Transmission

       The information contained in this facsimile transmission is 
     legally privileged and/or confidential. It is intended only 
     for the use of the named individual or entity, and may be 
     subject to the attorney/client privilege and/or attorney work 
     product privilege and transmission is not a waiver of any 
     privilege recognized in law. If you are not the intended 
     recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
     delivering this document to the intended recipient, any 
     dissemination or copying of this transmission is strictly 
     prohibited. If you have receiveed this transmission in error, 
     please immediately notify us by calling the number noted 
     below and destroy the original transmission. Thank you.
     Date: February 12, 1997.
     Transmit to fax number: 202 226 0622.
     Immediate Delivery To: Hon. Scott McInnis.
     From: Gale Norton.
     Number of Pages (Including Cover): ___.
     Alpha: ______.
     Speciasl Instructions: ______.
       If there is any problem receiving transmission, call: (303) 
     866-__.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of 
bipartisanship, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady], the Chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding this time to me.
  There is one point I want to bring out about this amendment and all 
of the first eight amendments that we will be considering. That is that 
they have no time limit on the period for ratification. All of the 
first seven amendments provide explicitly that there is no time limit 
within which the States must ratify them.
  Throughout this century there has been a practice of establishing a 
7-year time limit for the ratification of amendments on the theory that 
there should be a contemporaneous approval of an amendment to the 
Constitution from the States, and something should as a general rule 
not be allowed to be proposed to the States and remain there 
accumulating States over the centuries.
  Now I think that it would be a very bad precedent for this Congress 
to propose an amendment to the State for no time limits, and I would 
simply bring that to the Members' attention.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaefer], my colleague.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson, who is 
quoted an awful lot today in describing his devotion to the will of the 
people, was fond of saying the voice of the people is the voice of God. 
Except in the late 1770's and early 1780's he was more eloquent and 
more romantic; he said: ``Vox Populi, Vox Dei.''
  In Colorado the people have spoken clearly. In fact they spoke first 
and forcefully on the matter of term limits. Their proposal is before 
us now, embodied in the amendment that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
McInnis] and I were instructed, by those same people, at the polls, to 
offer for your consideration today.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support for this proposal, and in 
doing so ask that they consider one more factor that has yet to be 
featured in today's debate.
  By this vote, we impose nothing, no term limits, we impose nothing. 
Instead, we are considering whether to refer a measure back to our 
State legislatures for their consideration in 50 States, other elected 
officials who are perhaps more skilled than we are to define their 
relationship in their State with the Federal Government.
  More than any other configuration, three terms in the House, two 
terms in the Senate, has been suggested by the States. That is 
something I think we ought to take firm note of here today, that, yes, 
it is correct, those who have said that there has been no clear mandate 
as to what the proper period of time ought to be more than any other 
configuration, three terms in the House, two terms in the Senate has 
been suggested by more States.
  It is entirely appropriate for us to adopt this amendment, turn the 
question back over to the States, as we ought to and have been 
requested to do, and allow the States to decide what our terms ought to 
be here. Three terms in the House, two terms in the Senate is 
sufficient time to get the work done here in the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I only 
have one speaker remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, 
and I only have one speaker remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to go over very briefly what 
this requires us to do in Colorado.
  If we follow the requirement of the Colorado proposition, that 
amendment in Colorado, it requires that we vote on the exact language 
that the Colorado voters, the people that voted and those who voted in 
the majority required. That language includes in part a restriction 
that we cannot vote on any other type of language regarding term 
limits. So even if we have the ideal term limit bill sitting in front 
of us, and frankly I have been a strong supporter of national term 
limits, uniform term limits across the country for all States, not one 
State standing alone but all States, and I think we got some good 
propositions to vote for, but this specific language requires that I 
vote against that. The only vote that I can make in the affirmative 
today under the requirements of this provision as forwarded by U.S. 
Term Limits is a vote in favor of this amendment.
  In regard to that and in due respect to the voters who voted, I will 
follow those instructions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] 
has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I was instructed by the second speaker who said the 
voice of the people is the voice of God. Well apparently God speaks 
with a different voice in Colorado, from Nebraska, from Nevada. 
Apparently we are not just amending the Constitution here, we are 
amending the Bible, and polytheism is now coming in. I mean if it is 
Vox Populi, Vox Dei, why do we have a different ``vox'' when you cross 
the river between Nebraska and Colorado? I must say so circumscribing 
it, and it is one thing to circumscribe the right of the people, but 
when you begin to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Almighty, it 
seems to me there is an overreach.
  Now, I do not want to think we are using the time of the House very 
well, so I looked at the differences. I mean, why one amendment not the 
other? Why do we have to do them? Well, there are some very important 
differences here.
  One might think that it is unimportant that they are exactly the same 
substantively, they both have the same limits. But for instance in 
Arkansas it is section A, B and C, whereas in Colorado it is section 1, 
2 and 3. Certainly the gentleman from Colorado would not want to betray 
the voice of God in Colorado by adopting the voice of God in Arkansas 
because apparently God says A, B, C in Arkansas and God says 1, 2, 3 in 
Colorado. Now, religious wars have been fought over less, so I 
understand the gentleman's scrupulosity of instruction.
  There are also some other differences. For instance, in Arkansas the 
voice of God says of the congressional term limits amendment, but in 
Colorado, in a major theological difference--maybe we will get a new 
religion out of this or at least a new synagogue in my tradition--it 
does not say of the congressional term limits; it says of this 
amendment. And certainly we would not want to confuse the people that 
God meant of the amendment in the one place and the congressional term 
limits in another.
  In another place he says four more than one additional term in 
Colorado, but he just says more than one additional term in Arkansas.
  Now understand Members are coming before us, and they are saying I 
invoke the most powerful doctrines around democracy and the voice of 
God to say that I cannot vote for A, B, C because I am committed to 
vote for 1, 2, 3.

[[Page H490]]

 Never mind that 1, 2, 3 means exactly the same thing as A, B, C in 
most places.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not previously talked about trivialization. I do 
not think this trivializes the Constitution. I think the fundamental 
principle restricts the Constitution in a nontrivial way. But when 
Members come here and say I am honor bound to vote for 1, 2, 3, and I 
ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting A, B, C, I think we have 
reached a level that is inappropriate for the House to be spending a 
lot of time on. And to make my contribution towards diminishing that, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47 further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report No. 105-4.


      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. crapo

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Crapo:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid 
     to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section A. No person shall serve in the office of the 
     United States Representative for more than three (3) terms, 
     but upon ratification no person who has held the office of 
     United States Representative or who then holds the office 
     shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       ``Section B. No person shall serve in the office of the 
     United States Senator for more than two (2) terms, but upon 
     ratification, no person who has held the office of the United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve for 
     more than one additional term.
       ``Section C. This article shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
     ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
     several States.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and a Member in opposition will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] for 5 
minutes
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to stand with my colleague 
from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] to offer this amendment, which has been an 
amendment that is required by the vote of the people of Idaho in the 
last election.
  This amendment is in the exact language as passed by the people of 
Idaho in the State initiative on the ballot in November of 1996. The 
amendment sets the terms for Members in the House of Representatives at 
three and Members in the Senate at two. These limits are not 
retroactive. The amendment does not require a constitutional 
convention, and it does not set a year limit for ratification.
  In the past I have supported a different term limits measure, one 
which had a 12-year term limit for the House and a 12-year term limit 
for the Senate. However, the voting by the people of Idaho as passed 
this year has declared their will that we as their Representatives in 
Congress put forward this amendment and the gentlewoman from Idaho 
[Mrs. Chenoweth] and I are doing as instructed by the law of the State 
of Idaho.
  Last Congress I supported the McCollum term limits bill that, as I 
said, supported a 12-year term limit. However, in this Congress I must 
oppose this bill because of the initiative passed by the people of the 
State of Idaho which requires me to oppose any term limits measure that 
does not have the same set of term limit conditions that are included 
in the initiative that was passed in the State.
  I am concerned that that might ultimately result in less votes for a 
term limit measure that may pass the House, and I am concerned and 
hopeful that the people of not only the State of Idaho but across the 
Nation will focus on the differences that may be present among us now 
because of different term limits measures and initiatives that are 
passed. Hopefully, this problem may not be something that will cause 
more difficulty for enacting term limits in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in 
opposition, and I have only one speaker, Mr. Chairman, because God has 
not spoken to us so we only have one. So I will reserve my right to 
close.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits are what we need to give government back to 
the people. Limiting the service of Members of Congress will result in 
new people with better and more innovative ideas who have been out in 
the real world working hard and providing for their families. I believe 
so strongly in the value of citizen legislators over career politicians 
that I have imposed a three-term term limit on myself. And I mean it.

                              {time}  1400

  It is important to know that many of our Founding Fathers extolled 
the virtues of a limited Government service. In the Federalist Papers, 
James Madison wrote, ``It is essential to such a Government that it be 
derived from the great body of the society and not from an 
inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it.''
  I believe that the best way to achieve this goal of a citizen-led 
Government is to draw from the citizenry on a very regular basis, and 
the way to create more opportunities for citizen legislators is to 
discourage people from building careers out of public service.
  When our Founding Fathers initiated our system of Government, they 
did not intend to create career politicians. A constitutional amendment 
for term limits will stop career politicians by restoring the power to 
the people of this great country. Thomas Jefferson said, ``We must 
chain the government and free the people,'' and I believe now, more 
than ever, that this must happen at this time.
  Unbridled, personal political ambition ultimately enslaves the 
citizens of this country. The amendment that the gentleman from Idaho 
[Mr. Crapo] and I are offering will put an end to career politicians by 
limiting Members of the House of Representatives to three terms, and if 
a Member is in House when this amendment is ratified, they are allowed 
to serve two more additional terms.
  The amendment also limits Senators to two terms and allows Senators 
to serve only one more additional term if they hold office at the time 
of ratification. Finally, no time limit is placed upon when the 
amendment must be ratified.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits for Members of Congress are what we need to 
bring in fresh, new ideas and to put an end to out-of-touch 
politicians, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal, 
Democrat or Republican. The citizens of the State of Idaho and America 
have spoken, and they want term limits. Please let us respect their 
wishes today by passing a meaningful term limits constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this substitute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I bring reassurance. As I said before, there was a 
therological difference in that the first amendment talked about A, B; 
no C, I correct myself; and this one is 1, 2, and

[[Page H491]]

3. The people of the letters who fear that they had been abandoned by 
the Almighty for the doctrine of numbers can take heart, because the A, 
B, C variants have returned.
  So the difference is the first amendment was A and B; the second one 
was 2 and 3; and the third one was A, B and C. Of such triviality I 
suppose our careers are construct.
  Now, when we talk about careers, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] 
has made a variant of the striking historical point that the Founding 
Fathers were great supporters of term limits, even though they rejected 
the concept. The notion that the Founding Fathers forgot to put term 
limits in the Constitution is rather more unkind than I think they 
deserve. They not only rejected term limits; they were, many of them, 
career politicians.
  James Madison, whom the gentlewoman just cited, was one of the most 
distinguished career politicians in America, and I ask the gentlewoman 
to look up the career of James Madison, look up the career of James 
Monroe, look up the career of Benjamin Franklin, of Thomas Jefferson 
himself. Tammany Hall goes back, the Democratic Party goes back, Thomas 
Jefferson and James Madison go back to the leaders of Tammany. They 
were part of a political deal. They were people who were very 
political.
  It was through John Adams, one of the most distinguished of them, who 
wrote a famous passage in which he said, I have to be a career 
politician. I hope we will have so solved the problems. He said, I 
studied politics in war, and he saw depression so that his great, great 
grandchildren could deal with painting and the fine arts. But he was a 
career politician, he acknowledged that, and he said he had to be a 
career politician because these were difficult times. He thought 
allowing people of the first rank to abandon a career in politics was a 
luxury to be left to later times when the Nation was more strongly 
developed.
  Now, I think it is admirable to talk about the Founding Fathers, but 
it would be equally admirable to read what they said and read about 
them. Anyone who reads about Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, et 
cetera, and does not see in them career politicians is missing the 
point.
  George Washington I did not mention. George Washington was much more 
reluctant a public servant. George Washington can legitimately be cited 
as someone whose preference was not for public life, but Franklin and 
Madison and Jefferson, and then to go on, as others have said, Webster 
and Clay, John C. Calhoun, these were not people who spent most of 
their time in what someone referred to as the real world.
  I must say, until recently, I would reject the notion that there was 
something unreal about our world. But I will have to concede, when we 
are debating A, B versus 1, 2, 3 versus A, B, C, and invoking God's 
authority to tell us to pick one or the other, then I suppose an 
element of unreality has come in, but I do not think those who have 
rejected the unreality are entitled to cite it. I think that there is a 
rule of equity that ought to be abided by here.
  Let me close with this, Mr. Chairman. The notion that a continuation 
in public service is corrupting can only mean one thing, that you think 
the public constitutes a bad influence on politicians, because what 
differentiates a career-elected official from someone else? It is that 
the career public official has decided to dedicate himself or herself 
to constant scrutiny of the public. That career is dependent on a 
renewal of the approval of the public.
  What my colleagues must be saying is it is the only logical 
explanation when you denigrate people who make a career out of public 
service, the voters are on the whole a bad influence, and the way to 
improve things is in fact substantially diminished by amending the 
Constitution and changing what the Founding Fathers thought, 
substantially diminishing the extent to which the public can be such a 
bad influence.
  I do not think that is a good idea, and I hope, once again, that all 
of these amendments are defeated in all of their various numerological, 
graphological, and other permutations.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, further proceedings on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments in the nature of a substitute on which 
further proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment 
No. 1 in the nature of substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson]; amendment No. 2 in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis]; and 
amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].


Amendment NO. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85, 
noes 341, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                                AYES--85

     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield

                               NOES--341

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page H492]]


     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carson
     Clay
     Kanjorski
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1427

  Messrs. Greenwood, Boehner, Barton of Texas, Nadler, and Dan Schaefer 
of Colorado changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. Deutsch, Hall of Texas, Combest, Goss, Tauzin, and Bartlett 
of Maryland changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 amendment no. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. mc innis

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 339, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 12]

                                AYES--87

     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield

                               NOES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carson
     Clay
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Spratt
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1437

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


   amendment no. 3 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. crapo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.

[[Page H493]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85, 
noes 339, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 13]

                                AYES--85

     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield

                               NOES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Carson
     Clay
     Meek
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Towns
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1548

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 105-4.


      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. blunt

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Blunt:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid 
     to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States:

                              ``Article--

       ``(a) No person shall serve in the office of United States 
     Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of this amendment no person who has held the 
     office of United States Representative or who then holds the 
     office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       ``(b) No person shall serve in the office of United States 
     Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification of 
     this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve in 
     the office for more than one additional term.
       ``(c) Any state may enact by state constitutional amendment 
     longer or shorter limits than those specified in section `a' 
     or `b' herein.
       ``(d) This article shall have no time limit within which it 
     must be ratified to become operative upon the ratification of 
     the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Blunt] will be recognized for 5 minutes in support of the 
amendment, and a Member in opposition to the amendment, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Scott], will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer an amendment to House 
Joint Resolution 2. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman 
from Florida, [Mr. McCollum], for his commitment to term limits and for 
the amendment that he has offered and his consistent stand for term 
limits over the years.
  As the Secretary of State in Missouri a number of years ago, I was 
the first State official in our State to support term limits and, in 
fact, our State, 10 years ago, adopted term limits as an amendment to 
our constitution. We were one of the first States to do that. As we 
know, Mr. Chairman, eventually 23 States adopted term limits as part of 
their State constitution, and the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, 
determined that States on their own did not have the ability to 
establish that requirement for membership in the Congress.
  In the last election, Missourians again voted to adopt an amendment 
to our constitution that called for even a stricter limit on the terms 
a person can serve in the House. Our first amendment was 8 years in the 
House and 12 years in the Senate, with the caveat that half of the 
States would have to have term limits before our term limits would come 
to pass.
  In the last election, Missourians again showed that they were in the 
mainstream of thinking in the country, where 80 percent of the voters 
in the country consistently, and generally voters who do not agree on 
any other

[[Page H494]]

topic, agreed that term limits is a reform that would be a beneficial 
reform for the Congress and would ensure a different kind of 
decisionmaking in the Congress; would assure that people come more 
frequently and from different perspectives as to what the government 
needs to do.
  We also, in our amendment and in the amendment that I am proposing 
today, gave leeway to the States that I think is unique in this debate. 
What the amendment that I am proposing does, Mr. Chairman, is it 
establishes a maximum amount of time that can be spent in the House of 
three terms, a maximum amount of time that can be spent in the Senate 
of two terms, but allows the States on their own to change their 
constitution in ways different than that if they choose to do so.
  I think this differs from a proposal that would just say let us leave 
this totally up to the States, because it does set a limit if a State 
has not chosen to deal with this on its own. It also allows the States 
at a later time, and as the thinking on this concept of term limits 
would mature and develop over time, to, on a one-by-one basis, decide 
that a different limit other than 6 years in the House and 12 years in 
the Senate had merit.
  Certainly I can see a scenario where people might decide that 6 years 
was not quite enough, but they would then by an individual State basis 
have the ability to go to 8 years or 10 years or even 12 years in the 
House, or more.
  It also, conversely, would allow voters in States that had decided 
that 6 years was just right to also decide that 6 years was just right 
for the Senate and to adopt a limit for the Senate of only one term.
  So we are proposing, I and others of my colleagues from Missouri, in 
exact compliance with the express direction of Missouri voters in the 
last election, that the Constitution be amended to allow a limit of 6 
years in the House, a limit of 12 years in the Senate, but to give the 
States flexibility as to how they would deal with that in the future.
  I appreciate the opportunity that has been provided to offer certain 
amendments to House Joint Resolution 2.
  I request your support for an amendment that I have offered for 
consideration by the House. For purposes of clarification and 
identification, I will refer to it as the Missouri Amendment.
  It is my belief that term limits must reflect the desire of the 
American public to change the system under which this institution 
operates. Clearly, the public holds the opinion that fewer terms are 
better than more. Recent polling confirms that an overwhelming majority 
of voters believe that six terms for a member of the House is too long. 
Over 80 percent of the voting public prefers a three-term limit.
  As a former county elections official and as the former chief 
election officer for the State of Missouri, I have studied this issue 
and listened to the voters. The voters of Missouri have twice had the 
opportunity for a statewide vote relative to term limits. They have 
made their viewpoint known.
  Consistent with those views and my own, I was the first Missouri 
statewide official to endorse term limits. I have offered a bill, House 
Joint Resolution 42, to limit terms to three in the House and two in 
the Senate.
  In November 1996, state constitutional amendments were passed in nine 
States, including Missouri, as a result of grassroot initiative 
efforts.
  Those State constitutional amendments instruct members of the State's 
congressional delegation to work for the adoption of a U.S. 
Constitutional amendment establishing Congressional term limits. The 
initiatives also included very specific voter instructions to 
incumbents and candidates. Failure to comply with these instructions 
trigger language to be placed by the name of candidates on future 
ballots which read either ``Disregarded Voters' Instruction on Term 
Limits'' or ``Declined to Support Term Limits.'' Thus, becoming known 
as the scarlet letter provision.
  Many members of Congress support the adoption of term limits. As you 
are aware, there is much debate over the specific number of terms to be 
adopted. The situation now occurs which a member of one of the nine 
States who supports term limits but votes for House Joint Resolution 2, 
may fail the test and have triggered the scarlet letter provision.
  In the nine States, the final determination as to whether or not a 
member followed voter instructions rests with the Secretary of State. 
The Secretary of State may determine that, in order to avoid failing 
the ``Voter Instruction'' test, a member may be required to vote for 
language that is absolutely identical and verbatim to that which passed 
in his or her home State. Therefore, it may be necessary for each of 
those nine States' delegation to have an opportunity to vote for term 
limit language unique to their State. House Leadership has expressed 
concern that such an opportunity be made available.
  To that end, to ensure that members of the Missouri delegation have 
the ability to vote for language that meets a verbatim test of Missouri 
Amendment 9, I am offering the Missouri amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, of all of the amendments, this is the least bad, but 
not good, so I still oppose it. However, it does allow the States the 
option, if one State finds itself with a horrible delegation, of wiping 
it clean with some term limits, but the other States would not be so 
affected.
  So although it is the least bad, it is still not good and I have to 
oppose it. But I thank the gentleman for offering us this opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say I think this is an idea whose time will come. It may 
not come today, but I believe that term limits will be a reform that 
comes in this House. I think it can come with some flexibility.
  I appreciate my colleague from Virginia at least recognizing my 
amendment as the least bad of the amendments that has been offered 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Shelia Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his 
leadership and for yielding me this time.
  It would appear that my position in this House is to try to be as 
consistent and as pure and as well focused on the issues as one could 
possibly be. I have already made the statement that this Constitution 
is secure and that the people can ratify those of us who run for this 
office every 2 years. But I must say to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Blunt] that I am interested in his particular amendment inasmuch 
as it tracks, albeit in a limited fashion, my commitment to States' 
rights on this issue.

                              {time}  1500

  I am hearing all of the discord and discussion about the people 
speaking. At least Mr. Blunt's amendment has a provision that suggests 
that if the States do not act or if they do not act, it then falls to 
three terms for the House and two terms for the Senate, but that it has 
a provision that the States can act, and that means that Indiana can 
act, that Texas can act, that New York can act, that Virginia can act 
on their accord as the people would so speak.
  So I would simply raise this amendment up for its consideration. I 
speak to it so that I can be consistent on my persistent point that 
this belongs, if anywhere, with the States, not with those of us in the 
U.S. Congress that would do damage to the Constitution that has been 
framed very well, that allows the people to speak every 2 years.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I think that many of the problems in 
America today are not necessarily going to be solved by people in 
Washington today. As we debate term limits here, saying that term 
limits are going to solve problems, to finance the budget, to change 
Washington, to invest in our children, I think that is absolutely the 
wrong approach to take.
  The answers to America lie within the American people. If we can 
encourage people to vote in our home constituencies, if we can 
encourage people to be responsible citizens and act through the ballot 
box, then we will solve so many of the problems that are bothering this 
great and wealthy Nation today.
  In Indiana, where I am from, we have seven Members that are new to 
our delegation since 1990. Seven out of ten are new, and we do not have 
term limits. The people of Indiana are voting to send new people to 
Washington, D.C.

[[Page H495]]

  When we look at amending the Constitution, I think it is very 
important to read what some of the Federalist Papers have said to us. 
They have said, by Alexander Hamilton in Paper No. 71, ``Deprive the 
new government of experienced officials and reduce the incentives for 
political accountability.''
  James Madison in No. 53 writes, ``The greater the proportion of new 
Members, the more apt they will be to fall into the snares that might 
be laid for them.''
  I was a new Member, and I think we need fresh faces and new ideas 
here, but they should come from our individual constituencies and from 
our people voting, not from a gimmick like term limits.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I feel very strongly 
about this. I feel that we can inspire people to vote, and we need to 
run positive campaigns and not mud sling at one another. We need to run 
bipartisan legislation here. We need to reform our campaign laws. That 
will encourage people to vote.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, further proceedings on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 5 printed in House 
Report 105-4.


   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. CHRISTENSEN

  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Christensen:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid 
     to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of this amendment no person who has held the 
     office of United States Representative or who then holds the 
     office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       ``Section 2. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who holds the office shall serve more than 
     one additional term.
       ``Section 3. This article shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
     ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
     several states.''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] 
will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak on an issue that is so 
important to the majority of Americans, and that is the issue of term 
limits. Americans unequivocally support the concept of term limits. 
Poll after poll will reflect this. But this past fall, voters across 
the country approved term limit amendments to their State 
constitutions, giving further credence to what we already know to be 
true.
  Americans are demanding term limits. The people of my State have now 
spoken three times on this issue. In 1992, Nebraskans passed a term-
limits amendment to our State constitution, only to have it thrown out 
by the State supreme court on a ballot requirement technicality. 
Undaunted, the voters of Nebraska passed another term-limits amendment 
by an even greater margin 2 years ago. This amendment was later 
invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  This past November, Nebraska and eight other States adopted term-
limit amendments to their respective constitutions by overwhelming 
margins; 61 percent of the voters in my district approved term limits 
last fall. Nebraskans feel very strongly that term limits are a 
necessary step in returning our Government to the people.
  I do agree with my friend from Indiana that the answers to America's 
problems do not lie in Washington, but I believe until we fully get to 
that step, we need to continue toward what the people want. The people 
of Nebraska ask strongly, and with a 61-percent approval, to make sure 
that we had an opportunity to offer this today.
  During my first campaign for Congress, I pledged I would serve no 
more than four terms. That was in accordance with Nebraska term-limits 
law at the time. I did so because I believed that a citizen 
legislature, a citizen Congress, that was originally founded by our 
Founding Fathers, was what their intent was to be, and to follow that 
direction. But yet America has gone away from that, and I believe that 
there are too many people that are making this into a career.
  I ask you today how anyone who spends over 30 years here, how they 
can identify with that farmer, that entrepreneur, that individual who 
is out there each day in the working world trying to make a living. I 
believe that people here in Congress should be sent and are sent to 
represent and not rule over the people.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that what we need to do today is to enact 
term limits so that Nebraskans and other States like Nebraska who have 
overwhelmingly asked for this type of initiative, be put into law. I 
ask Members therefore to join me today in supporting the Christensen 
amendment, which is a 6-year, 12-year type of approach with a beginning 
of this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an old congressional adage that all that needs 
to be said has already been said but all that need to say it have not 
already said it.
  This substitute is virtually identical to several that have been 
defeated previously by margins of greater than 3 to 1. This amendment 
refers to the legislation as an amendment and has a perfecting 
paragraph; the Arkansas amendment refers to legislation as the 
congressional term-limits amendment; the Colorado amendment referred to 
it as an amendment; the Idaho amendment referred to it as an article; 
the Missouri amendment referred to it as an amendment; the next 
amendment we will consider refers to it as an amendment, but 
substantively they are all identical. So we will just incorporate by 
reference all of the arguments against this amendment that have 
previously been made and have been very successful in defeating it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. This amendment does parallel exactly word for word the ballot 
initiative 409 in the State of Nebraska. I greatly respect my friend 
from Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, further proceedings on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] will be postponed.

[[Page H496]]

  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House 
Report 105-4.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Ensign

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Ensign:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States:

                 ``Congressional Term Limits Amendment

       ``Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of the 
     United States Representative for more than three terms, but 
     upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held 
     the office of United States Representative or who then holds 
     the office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       ``Section 2. No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve for 
     more than one additional term.
       ``Section 3. This article shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several States.''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will 
each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong believer in term limits for Members of 
Congress. I am very excited that as a freshman Member and a 
Representative, I have taken an active involvement in such an important 
debate.
  As my colleague the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] has stated, a 
majority of Nevada voters have mandated that we support three two-year 
terms for Representatives and two 6-year terms for Senators. Our 
amendment reflects these limits and sets no time limit for 
ratification. Our amendment also does not apply to terms retroactively. 
It just states that upon ratification, incumbent Representatives may 
serve no more than 2 additional terms and incumbent Senators no more 
than 1 additional term.
  If I may characterize, Mr. Chairman, the reasons that the question of 
term limits was put on the 1996 Nevada ballot was that the voters, and 
I feel across America as well as in Nevada, are deeply troubled by 
Congress and their continuing disregard for their desire for term 
limits. The voters are concerned that there is a conflict of interest 
whereby Congress has ignored the voice of the people and failed to pass 
term limits. They are concerned that without term limits, the effort to 
get reelected seriously dilutes the effectiveness of Congress. They are 
concerned that career politicians will perpetuate their dominion over 
Congress. But most of all they are concerned that the lack of term 
limits denies the will of our Founding Fathers, that this branch of 
government remain closest to the people.
  Nevada has joined the ranks of 23 other States which support term 
limits. By the terms of the Nevada constitution, the State amendment 
initiative to support term limits must be approved by the voters in two 
general elections. Although neither Representative Ensign nor I are 
standing before you today for any other reason, we are representing the 
spirit of our voters.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have heard previous speakers talk about trivializing the 
constitution. I think the exercise we are going through now points out 
how trivial some of this exercise is. This amendment is virtually 
identical to several that we have previously defeated, as I said, by 
margins of 3, almost 4 to 1. There is a difference in this one. The 
title of the thing is Congressional Term Limits Amendment. The title 
listed in others was, quote, Article. We use 1, 2, and 3 to designate 
the sections rather than A, B, and C. It is substantively identical to 
several we have already considered. Again, we will incorporate by 
reference the arguments that had those other amendments defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address a few of the points that have been 
brought up here today on the House floor. First of all, yes, we are 
pretty assured that we are not going to win this term limits battle 
today. But it is important that we do have this vote, for the will of 
the American people is to have term limits and the only way that they 
know whether or not their Member represents them the way that they want 
is to have recorded votes. That is why I applaud the leadership in the 
House of Representatives for not only bringing this to the floor today 
but also in the last Congress. The reason that I believe so strongly in 
term limits are several reasons. One is the power of incumbency. People 
say, ``Well, you have term limits at the ballot booth.'' Mr. Chairman, 
nothing could be further from the truth simply because of the power of 
incumbency. Challengers in no way can have the same kind of name 
recognition unless they raise so much money or have incredible personal 
wealth, because incumbents get on the radio whenever they want, they 
get on television whenever they want, they go to our plants whenever 
they want, and these same opportunities are not afforded to 
challengers.

                              {time}  1515

  The other things that have been brought up on the floor today address 
turnover. We have had a tremendous turn over the last few years. Well, 
those have been extraordinary circumstances. One is we had a campaign 
finance reform bill where Members of Congress had to retire if they 
wanted to take their campaign money with them. We look at several of 
the other things that have happened: There have been extraordinary 
circumstances of why we have had tremendous turnover. This is not 
normal. We also look at the statistics: Incumbents have a huge 
advantage on being reelected, and a lot of good people do not run for 
office because if one is faced with a 20 or 30 to 1 chance of winning 
against an incumbent, they do not want to have their family's name drug 
through the mud, they do not want their own good name drug through the 
mud after a successful career, and a lot of good people are not coming 
to this body in America because of the power of incumbency.
  I believe very strongly that we need a blend of fresh ideas coming in 
constantly with some wisdom that is built up, and the only way to do 
that is with term limits.
  We also hear a lot about campaign finance reform, and frankly I think 
that the prospects for that this year are pretty dim myself, just 
talking with the competing forces. I hope it comes about. I think we 
desperately need it. But there is no better campaign finance reform 
than term limits. The power of the incumbency can only be negated by 
term limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, further proceedings on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order: amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Blunt], amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from 
Nebraska

[[Page H497]]

[Mr. Christensen], and amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign].


   amendment no. 4 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. blunt

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 72, 
noes 353, not voting 8, as follows:

                              [Roll No 14]

                                AYES--72

     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Talent
     Thornberry
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield

                               NOES--353

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Carson
     Clay
     Obey
     Pickering
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Smith (NJ)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1536

  Messrs. Thune, Torres, and White changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on roll call no. 14, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on roll call no. 14, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


     amendment no. 5 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. 
                              christensen

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 83, 
noes 342, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 15]

                                AYES--83

     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield

                               NOES--342

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich

[[Page H498]]


     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bono
     Carson
     Clay
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Smith (NJ)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1548

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 15, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 15, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.


  amendment no. 6 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. ensign

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85, 
noes 339, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                                AYES--85

     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield

                               NOES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

[[Page H499]]



                             NOT VOTING--9

     Carson
     Clay
     LaTourette
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Smith (NJ)
     Taylor (NC)
     Young (AK)

                             {time}   1557

  Mrs. Kennelly changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on roll call no. 16, I was 
unavoidably detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted No.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in House Report 105-4.


      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. Thune

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Thune:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following: That the following article is proposed as an 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which 
     shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
     Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

       ``(a) No person shall serve in the office of the United 
     States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of this amendment no person who has held the 
     office of United States Representative or who then holds the 
     office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       ``(b) No person shall serve in the office of United States 
     Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification of 
     this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve more 
     than one additional term.
       ``(c) This article shall have no time limit within which it 
     must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
     several states.''.

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue today. I want to 
add to the menu of options that is available for those who support term 
limits. I would like today, Mr. Chairman, to vote in favor of the 
McCollum amendment, the Fowler amendment, but frankly the voters of 
South Dakota have spoken as well. We have a specific provision in our 
law now, and I must rise to offer an amendment which is consistent with 
that provision.
  Frankly, it has been my long-held belief that our country and this 
Congress would be well served by term limits. So I have consistently 
throughout the last year as I have campaigned across the State of South 
Dakota supported term limits.
  In fact, I have committed to support the most restrictive version 
that would be enacted by the House of Representatives. But today the 
amendment that I offer would comply with the State law, and the State 
of South Dakota has been clear in the message that they have sent to 
us, in 1992. Over 63 percent of the voters in our State approved an 
amendment to the State Constitution that restricted the service of 
South Dakota's congressional delegation and of the State legislature.
  While a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the law invalid 
as it applies to Members of Congress, South Dakotans still believe 
strongly in limiting congressional service. A more recent vote affirmed 
that belief. That last November almost 68 percent of the voters 
approved another term limits measure. The measure, now part of South 
Dakota codified law, provides that any Member of Congress representing 
the State of South Dakota must work to enact a constitutional term 
limits amendment.
  The law explicitly enumerates what actions a Member of the U.S. House 
or U.S. Senate may take in order to enact the measure. The law also 
explicitly defines a term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 
Those terms are outlined verbatim in my version of the amendment. If a 
Member of the South Dakota delegation fails to follow the directions of 
that law, a notation stating ``disregarded voters' instructions on term 
limits'' would appear next to that person's name on the ballot.
  To say the least, that notation would be undesirable to any 
candidate. As a strong proponent of term limits, that statement would 
not accurately reflect my position on this issue.
  The amendment I offer today would conform with South Dakota law. The 
Thune amendment allows for no more than three terms in the U.S. House 
of Representatives and no more than two terms in the U.S. Senate.
  Upon ratification, an individual holding office of either House may 
serve no more than two terms in that respective House. I respectfully 
request my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment I am offering. 
At the same time, I realize there are similar measures that would work 
toward the same purpose.
  In fact, I was an original cosponsor of the McCollum resolution, 
House Joint Resolution 2. While my cosponsorship did not change my 
self-imposed three term limit commitment, I realized that cosponsoring 
that resolution likely would have forced a negative message next to my 
name on the 1998 ballot. Therefore, on February 4, I had my name 
removed as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 2.
  Because I am so committed to the concepts of term limits, I would 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of some amendment today, some 
version, some approach that we can put on the ballot and get a serious 
vote. Frankly, I would hate to see this issue go down because we 
continually use a shotgun approach and give us a range of options 
rather than dealing with one particular version that could be enacted 
and passed by the two-thirds that are necessary in the House and the 
Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
the State of South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
because it seems to me that fewer years yields more in the way of 
benefits when it comes to term limits. I say that for a couple of 
different reasons.
  First, it is consistently what I hear about from my constituents back 
home. They do not say more or longer terms. They say shorter terms.
  Second, it seems to be the will of the Founding Fathers, when they 
talked about our Congress, this institution, they talked about a 
citizens Congress, and fewer years would yield that.
  Last, I think that fewer years would yield more in the way of benefit 
in terms of cutting our Nation's debt and deficit. The National 
Taxpayers Union did a study. What they found was that there was direct 
correlation between the length of time in office and propensity to 
spend taxpayer money. This amendment would make a difference on that 
front. For that reason, I support it.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I understand this amendment, it provides for three House terms, 
two Senate terms and is substantively identical to five earlier 
versions that we have considered. It is my understanding that the only 
difference between this amendment and other amendments is the fact that 
the sections are numbered 1, 2 and 3. And instead of using 1, 2 and 3 
and capital A and capital B and capital C, this one designates the 
sections using small A, small B, and small C.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the sponsor of the amendment to 
explain to me if there are any other differences between this and other 
amendments that we have been defeating by margins of three and four to 
one. If there are any differences other than the designation 1, 2, 3, 
capital A, B and C and the small letters A, B and C, I yield to the 
gentleman to respond.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the 
question.
  There are no substantive material differences between this and other 
proposals that have been voted on here

[[Page H500]]

today. However, in fairness to the people, the voters of our State, we 
chose to have the exact language as adopted verbatim by the voters of 
South Dakota as an option to vote on this afternoon.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we have already spoken about the 
trivializing of the Constitution. Obviously this process suggests that 
we are involved in a very trivial situation right now, voting on 
separate amendments where the only difference is whether sections are 
1, 2, 3, capital A, B and C or small A, B and C and taking separate 
votes on each one. I will incorporate by reference the substantive 
arguments that have been made heretofore that have resulted in the 
defeat of amendments by margins of three and four to one or worse.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would simply respond to the gentleman from Virginia by saying that 
I think most on the floor this afternoon who have suggested that it is 
trivializing to have these different amendments available probably come 
from States who have not been directed by their voters to have that. I 
think it is very important to all of us who have offered such 
amendments, as a result of such language being adopted by the voters of 
their State. In compliance with and at the direction of their will, we 
have the opportunity to vote on these amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, further proceedings on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 105-4.


     Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mrs. fowler

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
     Fowler:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid 
     to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after the date of its submission 
     for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``No person may serve more than four consecutive terms as 
     Representative or two consecutive terms as Senator, not 
     counting any term that began before the adoption of this 
     article of amendment.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is very simple. No bells, no whistles, no hidden 
meaning, just straight term limits, eight consecutive years for House 
Members, 12 consecutive years for Senators.
  It is the only one offered today that is not a lifetime ban. My 
amendment is based on the initiative passed by my State's voters in 
1992. The Eight is Enough term limits initiative garnered 77 percent of 
the vote in Florida, the highest percentage for term limits in any 
State.
  Although the Supreme Court decision struck down those term limits for 
Members of Congress, they are still in effect by our State legislature 
and State cabinet officers. Like many other States, our Governor was 
already term limited. Six, eight, twelve, there is really no magic 
number when it comes to term limits. Those of us who really support 
term limits do so because we subscribe to the notion that rotation in 
office is a good thing. It keeps officeholders close to the people.
  I think these goals are realized with any term limits, 12 years or 
under. That is why I will support the will of the House and vote for 
final passage no matter which version makes it.
  Because there is no magic number, I urge all my fellow term limit 
supporters to vote for my amendment. About 2 years ago, a certain 
unyielding term limits group started shifting the debate from 
distinguishing between term limits supporters and term limits opponents 
to distinguishing between supporters of 6-year limits and supporters of 
12-year limits. That is when I nicknamed my bill the Goldilocks bill. 
If you think 6 years is too short and you think 12 years is too long, 
then you might think 8 years is just right, just like the porridge in 
that famous nursery tale. I think an 8-year limit is an effective 
compromise that accomplishes all the goals we espouse as term limits 
advocates.
  Prior to the Supreme Court decision in 1995, Florida, Ohio, 
Massachusetts, and Missouri had passed 8-year term limits; 8-year term 
limits were supported by 9 million voters in those States. I urge my 
colleagues to join those citizens in saying eight is enough and vote 
for passage of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This one has an actual substantive difference from some of the others 
we have considered, having a lifetime of 8 years. With 8 years, it is 2 
years less worse than the rest we have considered, which were defeated 
by margins of 4 to 1.
  Obviously, the fact that this is on the floor suggests that the 
committee did not offer any arguments as to why this is any better or 
worse than any of the others we have considered. I think the Goldilocks 
rationale probably is about the most substantive rationale for this 
that I have seen.
  Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that the committee treat this 
the same way they have treated the others. Without prolonging the 
triviality, Mr. Chairman, I would just refer to the arguments that have 
resulted in defeat of the others.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to make one final point today. My amendment is the only 
one that limits consecutive service in either body. It is not a 
lifetime ban. This last election we have elected several former Members 
of Congress back to Congress. I think they really bring a unique 
perspective to this institution. I would urge my colleagues to support 
my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to resolution 47, further proceedings on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1615

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed 
in House Report 105-4.


      Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. SCOTT

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:


[[Page H501]]


       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. 
     Scott.
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid 
     to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. No person who has been elected for a full term 
     to the Senate two times shall be eligible for election or 
     appointment to the Senate. No person who has been elected for 
     a full term to the House of Representatives six times shall 
     be eligible for election to the House of Representatives.
       ``Section 2. No person who has served as a Senator for more 
     than three years of a term to which some other person was 
     elected shall subsequently be eligible for election to the 
     Senate more than once. No person who has served as a 
     Representative for more than one year shall subsequently be 
     eligible for election to the House of Representatives more 
     than five times.
       ``Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it 
     shall have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
     of the several States within seven years from the date of its 
     submission to the States by the Congress.
       ``Section 4. No election or service occurring before this 
     article becomes operative shall be taken into account when 
     determining eligibility for election under this article.
       ``Section 5. A State may enact a term limit less than that 
     provided in this article.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will 
each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution heard with term 
limits, we heard testimony that several States have either enacted or 
are considering enacting term limits of less than 12 years. If we are 
going to have term limits, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the States 
ought to have that option.
  As I have said, personally I think it is unnecessary and unwise to 
limit the terms. The voters can limit those terms when they see fit. 
Judging from the turnover in Congress in recent years, more than 70 
percent of the House has turned over since 1990. So the voters seem to 
be doing a pretty good job.
  Mr. Chairman, if this resolution passes without my amendment, it 
would have the incredible effect of setting aside the expressed 
representations of many States. It is obvious from this exercise that 
we have been going through that many States expect to be heard in this 
debate. So if we are to ever have any finality on this, we have to 
allow States to express their views and adopt limits less than 12 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have to rise in opposition to this amendment because what it does 
is to create havoc out there and a hodgepodge system. If it were to be 
adopted, every State could adopt whatever it wants in the way of term 
limits up to the 12 years. We would wind up with some States having 12 
years, I am sure forever, and other States having 4, 6, 8, who knows, 
for the House, and who knows for the Senate?
  The net result of that, I think, would be bad government for our 
country. There would not be any uniformity. All the power would flow to 
those States that were the 12-year States.
  The proponents of this say that is fine; it is the problem of the 
States, if they make that decision, who choose the lesser number. But I 
would suggest it is easier to say that than in practice to live it.
  In reality, many residents of those States that do not choose to 
maintain the higher limits, the 12 years, which is the number of years 
for the House and Senate in the underlying bill I have offered, are 
going to suffer. They are going to suffer because the structure in some 
of those States, by initiative process and so forth, is such that they 
may never overcome or repeal or change those initiatives once they have 
adopted them for the lesser number of years.
  I do not think that is good. I do not think our Founding Fathers, as 
much as they overlooked the term limits issue itself, would ever want 
that much lack of symmetry.
  They envisioned a House and Senate that were pretty equally balanced 
in power; the States being represented by the Senators, who had the 
ability to take care of the small States because they were two from 
every State, regardless, and the House, which was more of a populace-
based body. They did not envision this breakdown into compartments that 
I have described, that would allow power to flow to States for other 
types of reasons, reasons that are far beyond the scope of the original 
creators and founders of this Nation.
  So I believe this is a very bad amendment. It is disingenuous. I know 
that the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, believes in offering it 
for the reasons he has stated. I do not want to derogate his personal 
views on this but, generally speaking, those who do not favor term 
limits would be the ones who most likely would want to support this 
amendment. Those who favor it, and want to really get term limits out 
of here ultimately and have it passed, ought to be supporting the 
underlying bill and should let us go forward and get to that vote after 
we finish voting on all the variations of the 6 and 8 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would point out that the exercise that we have been through would 
suggest that if an amendment ever passed that did not allow the States 
to reduce the time, we would be back here year after year after year.
  We have seen amendments presented where if we did not accept exactly 
the State language, not only the State language but the State 
designation of the sections, using a capital ``A'' rather than a small 
``a'' or a number 1 rather than an A or a B, that they will be back. So 
if we want any finality to this, this amendment is absolutely 
essential.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and I urge in the strongest of terms a ``no'' vote on the Scott 
amendment.
  I believe it is a very ingenious amendment, but it is very 
destructive to the term-limits process for those who support term-
limits. If it were to pass, it would be much more difficult for us to 
ever achieve a term limits passage through this body and through the 
Senate.
  So for those of us who support term limits, and many of us do in some 
form or another, this vote should be ``no'' on the Scott amendment 
regardless of our views on other matters.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott 
Amendment.
  Thousands of dedicated individuals gathered signatures on petitions 
in parking lots across the country. Twenty-five million people have 
cast ballots in favor of imposing term limits on Members of Congress 
from the States.
  This amendment is very similar to the Hilleary Amendment which was 
voted on in the 104th Congress. My version recognized the Federal term 
limits statutes that had passed in several States. My amendment was the 
only one which clearly protected the hard work and wishes of these 
people.
  Unfortunately, after the vote on the Hilleary Amendment, the U.S. 
Supreme Court struck down all of those State laws as unconstitutional.
  While the Scott Amendment will not bring those State laws back to 
life, it will allow those States to have the opportunity to enact term 
limits that they feel is right for their federally elected officials.
  I support States' rights and I support the Scott Amendment.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support final passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, further proceedings on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be postponed.

[[Page H502]]

          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune]; amendment No. 8 offered by the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Fowler]; and amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


   Amendment No. 7 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. THUNE

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 83, 
noes 342, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 17]

                                AYES--83

     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield

                               NOES--342

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Carson
     Clay
     Goodling
     Obey
     Pelosi
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)
  Messrs. SAXTON, HEFNER, and LATHAM changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. JONES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mrs. Fowler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 91, 
noes 335, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 18]

                                AYES--91

     Armey
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deutsch
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     John
     Jones
     Kim
     Klug
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Linda
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Traficant
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--335

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle

[[Page H503]]


     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carson
     Clay
     Duncan
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1649

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


      Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mr. Scott

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is a demand for a recorded vote on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Scott] on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 329, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                                AYES--97

     Armey
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Linda
     Talent
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--329

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

[[Page H504]]



                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carson
     Clay
     Obey
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1658

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed 
in House Report 105-4.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. BARTON of Texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Barton of Texas:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid 
     to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after the date of its submission 
     for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. No person who has been elected to the Senate 
     two times shall be eligible for election or appointment to 
     the Senate. No person who has been elected to the House of 
     Representatives six times shall be eligible for election to 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it 
     shall have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
     of the several States within seven years from the date of its 
     submission to the States by the Congress.
       ``Section 3. Election as a Senator or Representative before 
     this Article is ratified shall be taken into account for 
     purposes of section 1.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 47, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] and a Member opposed will each control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and myself, who are proponents of 
the amendment, each control 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and a Member of the minority party in opposition, 
control their 15 minutes and be permitted to yield blocks of time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
will claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I will be happy 
to yield to those who wish to participate. I have no objection to the 
allocation of the time between the two proponents.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I am 
more than willing to yield all the time in opposition for the gentleman 
to control. I thought perhaps there might be a member of the minority 
that also wanted to control some of that time, but if obviously there 
is not, it is his time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas want to revise his 
unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would revise my unanimous-
consent request and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] control 7\1/2\ minutes and yield as he sees fit; 
that I control 7\1/2\ minutes in support of the amendment and yield as 
I see fit; and that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] control the 
15 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida already has his time.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell].


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, prior to yielding myself time, I would 
inquire who is it that has the right, under the rule, to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has the right 
to close.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, if Members believe in term limits, this is 
the amendment for them. Our existing system of term limits works 
splendidly. They are called elections and have resulted in a 75-percent 
turnover since 1990.
  With the Committee on the Judiciary reporting House Joint Resolution 
2 without recommendation, it is clear that there is no consensus as to 
how we should amend the Constitution, but a number of people, inside 
and outside the Congress, are in a desperate rush to see that such is 
done.
  The House, under their fiat, shall amend the Constitution, do so 
quickly, without regard to the wide differences which exist amongst 
even the supporters of term limits.
  There is a gigantic quibble taking place amongst the traditional 
supporters of term limits. They cannot decide whether it should be 6, 
8, or 12 years for Members of the House. Should it be uniform amongst 
the States, or should the States choose for themselves? Should it 
include partial terms? Most importantly, should term limits count the 
service of those who have already served in Congress?
  I would think that we should count current and past service. That is 
why I have offered a bipartisan amendment with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. I want to salute him and commend him 
as not only a loyal friend, but as a vigorous and able proponent of 
this amendment.
  The amendment would apply term limits immediately; not retroactively, 
but immediately, with regard to the service which Members have 
committed, and it would count every partial election. It would ensure 
that the turnover desired by term-limit proponents is given them now.
  If this amendment is not passed, the proposal before us assures that 
the 7 years which it takes for ratification, plus the 12 years which is 
in the proposal, will give each Member 19 additional years, enough to 
qualify for their pension.
  Now, why make term limits immediate? If the American people are angry 
at legislators, they are angry at today's legislators, not tomorrow's, 
and changing House Resolution 2 to make term limits immediate should 
make sure that we are not going to hold future legislators to higher 
standards than those to which we hold ourselves.
  Our existing system of term limits all ready works quite well. They 
are called elections, which have resulted in a 75-percent turnover rate 
since 1990.
  With the Judiciary Committee reporting House Joint Resolution 2 
without recommendation, it is clear that there is no clear consensus on 
how to amend the Constitution to put term limits in place. Instead this 
effort seems driven by outside forces--which have determined that the 
House shall vote to amend the Constitution, do so quickly, and without 
regard to the wide differences that exist even among supporters of term 
limits.
  There is a gigantic quibble taking place between the traditional 
proponents of term limits * * * shall they be 6 years, 8 years, or 12 
years? Should they be uniform among all States, or should we let the 
States choose for themselves? Should they count partial terms?
  And, most importantly, should term limits count the service of those 
of us who have already served in Congress?
  I think we should count current and past service. That's why I have 
offered a bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from Texas that 
would:
  Apply term limits immediately, not in a couple of decades.
  Count every partial election.
  Ensure that the turnover desired by term limits proponents is given 
to them now, not in as long as two decades.
  Why make term limits immediate?
  The American people are angry at today's legislators, not tomorrow's. 
Changing House Joint Resolution 2 to make term limits immediate will 
make sure that we do not hold future legislators to a higher standard 
than ourselves.
  Opponents of immediate term limits say they fear the massive 
turnover. I suspect what they really fear is being part of that massive 
turnover. In fact, if term limits were effective for the 106th 
Congress, at least 123 Members would automatically be disqualified from 
service.
  Among this list of 123--besides myself--are 19 cosponsors of House 
Joint Resolution 2,

[[Page H505]]

who themselves will have served an average of 18 years--50 percent 
longer than they would allow future legislators to stay.
  Without immediate term limits, all current Members can serve almost 
20 more years, when you include up to 7 years for ratification by the 
States.
  If we are for term limits, let's have them now. Vote ``yes'' on 
Dingell-Barton.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As currently drafted, House Joint Resolution 2 is prospective only. 
That is, service occurring prior to ratification of the amendment is 
not counted toward the 6-term limit. It is ironic that for the most 
part this amendment is held more dear by opponents of term limits than 
by supporters of term limits.
  The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Texas have been 
very candid in expressing their opposition to the concept of term 
limits. I appreciate their candor on this. But anyone who supports term 
limits should understand that this amendment is being offered by those 
who are opposed to term limits. I would ask the Members to consider 
that fact and to make their judgment accordingly.
  With this amendment, we are far less likely to have an orderly 
process of transition in which people can adjust their expectations and 
move forward. In fact, this amendment that is being offered by the 
gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Michigan has the prospect 
for causing enormous confusion.
  Now, personally, the adoption of this amendment would not affect me 
in the least. I have imposed a limit on myself, and I will be gone from 
here in 4 years. While I am here, however, I am committed to passing 
term limits and moving to final passage on the measure that I believe 
can garner the most votes and that can be adopted by the States.
  The amendment that is now before the House is being offered as an 
amendment that would detract from that effort. It is an amendment that 
is offered I think quite clearly with the purpose of derailing the 
effort to establish term limits for Members of Congress.
  Now, it is instructive in weighing this amendment to examine how this 
issue has been dealt with by the 23 States that have imposed term 
limits on their congressional delegations prior to the Supreme Court 
decision in U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton. None, none of those laws 
counted service in Congress prior to the effective date of the State 
law in determining the number of additional terms that a Member could 
serve.
  In 1991, the voters of Washington State defeated a ballot initiative 
that included a retroactive term limits provision. But in 1992, they 
approved a new term limits measure that would not apply retroactively.
  Congress and the courts generally oppose retroactive legislation 
because it tends to create instability. It tends to deprive individuals 
and parties of reasonable notice and protection for their reasonable 
expectations.
  The Constitution reflects this bias against retroactive laws by 
prohibiting both the Congress and the States from enacting any ex post 
facto laws. We need to keep in mind that we are amending the document 
which sets forth the basic framework of our government. History teaches 
us that ratifications become a permanent part of that document.
  Under the Constitution, I think it is also important for us to 
understand, and under this proposal that is being considered now, 7 
years is a maximum time period for ratification by the States. That is 
contained within the gentleman's proposal. Once the amendment is 
approved by the Congress and sent to the States, ratification may take 
place as little as 2 years from now, or it may never be ratified at 
all. Conceivably, it could be ratified in less than 2 years. Once 
ratified by the States, the amendment goes into effect and the 12-year 
clock begins to particular.
  In other words, the time limit in the underlying text, like the time 
limit in all of the State-passed time provisions prior to the Thornton 
decision takes effect upon enactment. If it is ratified by the States 
in 2 years, it takes effect in 2 years. If it is ratified in 5 years, 
it takes effect in 5 years, and so on.
  The argument that has been made here assumes that the full 7-year 
period that is allowed in the underlying amendment will be utilized. 
Well, that could happen, but that is not necessarily the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to oppose this amendment and would 
again point out to all of the Members, if you are for term limits, you 
should not vote for this amendment. This is an amendment that is 
designed to derail the effort to enact meaningful term limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida mischaracterizes my 
position. I am not an opponent of term limits. I have opposed the 
provisions that restrict the House to three 2-year terms. I am a 
proponent of six 2-year terms, and I am also a proponent of letting the 
States take different positions, but I am not an opponent of the six 2-
year terms. So he mischaracterizes my position. I would not be a 
supporter of this amendment if I did not believe in term limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], my good friend, the ranking minority 
member of the committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we have now come to a very curious part in 
the proceedings for today. All the term limits have been voted down 
overwhelmingly, and now this one is now presented by the Dean of the 
House, and we are told now that if Members are for term limits, then 
vote this one down too.
  The gentleman says, this one should go down because it is 
retroactive, but if I heard Chairman Dingell correctly, he said that it 
took effect immediately and is not retroactive. So I think that we 
should get this terminology straight now.
  Now, why is this amendment derailing to the process of the people 
that support term limits? Can somebody explain that to me? That because 
the Dingell amendment suggests that it take effect immediately, that 
that is thought to be in bad faith? Why?

                              {time}  1715

  Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the reason that the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady] suggests that this is a derailing amendment is that many 
of the people who are supporting the base amendment, their time will 
have expired. Is that the reason we are accusing this amendment as 
being in bad faith? I do not quite follow this.
  This amendment is, I think, issued in good faith. The only difference 
is that term limits would begin immediately, and not prospectively. I 
urge the Members' careful thinking and consideration.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to respond 
to what the gentleman from Florida had to say.
  Mr. Chairman, term limits; if Members are for term limits and they 
really mean it and they want it to take effect immediately, this 
amendment is for them. If Members want term limits to take place in 19 
years, 7 years for ratification, 12 years following, so that they can 
have a secure and happy career in this institution, then by all means 
oppose the amendment and by all means support the resolution as it is 
drawn.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a real test of the sincerity of those who say 
they are for term limits. If Members are sincere, support the 
amendment. If they are not, oppose it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out the gentleman's amendment, the 
amendment we are considering now, might not be ratified for 7 years. So 
the idea that if we pass this here and they pass it in the Senate, all 
of a sudden we are going to have term limits, that is not so. It could 
take 7 years for that. That is just part of the process.
  I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask the gentleman this. If 
the House and Senate propose this and send it to the States in the form 
the Members are suggesting, and the

[[Page H506]]

States are considering it, and then on September 1 in the year 2000, 
when the 38th State ratifies your amendment, what would happen? What 
would happen?
  We would have a situation in which elections had been taking place, 
primaries had gone on, qualifying and close, in the vast majority of 
the States, and candidates would be running for office. Your amendment 
would come into effect and there would be absolute chaos. Can the 
gentlemen tell me why that is not a prospect of what would happen under 
this amendment?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I would point out to the 
gentleman that under our amendment, retroactivity means that whenever--
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would be 
happy to yield to the gentleman to explain the scenario I have just 
outlined and why that is not a problem. If he has a response on that, I 
am happy to yield to him.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, I will give him an 
explicit response. The term they are then serving would count, plus any 
prior terms would count. If that term you were in plus prior terms 
equaled six terms, you would not be eligible for reelection. You would 
be able to serve out that term.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. So, under that scenario, Mr. Chairman, 
individuals who had qualified under the laws of their States, 
individuals who had been nominated by their parties to stand for 
election, would stand disqualified as of that date, and there would be 
a wild scramble all over the country to fill in those slots. I do not 
think that is an orderly way to go about business. That is a flaw in 
the amendment that I suggest has not been adequately considered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. I have taught history and 
government, and I have, perhaps, a different perspective on the stance 
of our forefathers. I believe when we take into consideration the 
totality of their beliefs, they unquestionably believed in the concept 
of the citizen legislator. I believe they felt we should train 
ourselves for a profession, we should leave that profession for a time 
and serve in the national assembly, and then we should exit here, 
allowing other people with different backgrounds, different 
experiences, different problem-solving skills, to bring that experience 
to the problem-solving of the Nation.
  Because I believe in this concept so strongly, in 1988 when I ran for 
Congress, I said to those whom I sought to serve, if I am fortunate 
enough to be elected for five terms in the national assembly, I will at 
that point in time quit. This is my last term in the national assembly. 
I am thankful to have served here for five times.
  But let me deal with this idea of experience, because I have heard it 
mentioned here on the floor several times today. Experience one gains 
here as a Member of this august body is certainly important, but the 
experience one brings here from one's chosen profession and experience 
is equally important. It is the latter experience that perhaps needs to 
be infused into this assembly on a more frequent basis than our present 
system allows.
  Notwithstanding the wisdom of the author of this amendment and the 
great contribution that he has made to this assembly because of his 
experience, I believe, on balance, that our Government would better be 
served by a reasonable limit upon our service here, along the same 
lines we have chosen to limit other offices at both the State and 
Federal levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation before us to limit 
the terms of Members of the U.S. House and Senate.
  I know this position puts me at odds with many of the very 
distinguished Members of this body, Members whose service has been very 
meaningful for our Nation. But as a former civics teacher who spent 
hours at the blackboard talking with my students about our system of 
government, I am convinced that our Founding Fathers had a citizen-
legislature in mind when they designed our system. And they meant for 
us to be citizen-legislators, who would leave our profession for a time 
to serve in the national body, then return home as someone else made 
their contribution.
  When I first decided to run for Congress, I decided that if the 
people of Illinois were willing to allow me to serve for five terms, or 
10 years, that would be the limit of my service. I established a self-
imposed 10-year term limit, and I will be leaving the Congress at the 
end of this session. I will miss serving the people here in Congress, 
but I am absolutely convinced it is the right decision for me, and the 
right decision for our system.
  We need to make sure the system is open to teachers, small business 
owners, police officers, and retired folks who want to run for office 
and make a difference. Currently, with our fatally flawed system of 
financing campaigns, and with the advantages of incumbency, we draw 
from a very narrow pool of people who can realistically make a run for 
office. You either have to spend years working in the party structure, 
or else have a lot of your own money to spend, if you are serious about 
making a run for office. That is not the way it was meant to be.
  Limiting the terms of Members will help us restore the concept of a 
citizen-legislature. Reforming our campaign finance system will be 
another step in returning the process to the people. Done in tandem, we 
just might be able to reverse the growing trend of cynicism regarding 
this great and honorable institution.
  Voluntary term limits works for me, and I would encourage my 
colleagues to take a look at how that notion works within their own 
thoughts regarding service in the Congress. But until that becomes the 
rule rather than the exception, I believe we must act to 
constitutionally limit our terms.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to the 
characterization of this bill as an effort to derail term limits. My 
goodness, nobody could derail term limits more than the so-called 
proponents have done today. Item after item after item has bit the 
dust. This is the one chance to pass a piece of legislation that will 
in fact provide term limits.
  There will be no chaos. We will have 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 years before it 
goes into effect, and then it will only impact people who have been 
here a dozen years, plenty of time for grown-ups to manage a 
transition. What this is about is to avoid the game playing that we 
have seen.
  If Members believe in term limits, come forward with the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, vote for this, put it out, get 
rid of the professional politicians, and find out if that is what the 
American people want, find out if that is what the people here want. 
But for heaven's sakes, stop the game playing. Vote for the 
antihypocrisy amendment that is before us now. I strongly urge Members' 
support.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Dingell-
Barton amendment, not as an ardent supporter of term limits, but as a 
supporter of fairness and truth and honesty. If we are going to pass a 
constitutional amendment on term limits for future Members of Congress, 
let us make sure it also covers current Members. Let it be immediate.
  Some of my colleagues here in the House have had the opportunity to 
serve this body for 20 years or more. Many of them will be voting for a 
term limits amendment today, but not the Dingell-Barton amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask these long-serving Members, if they believe in term 
limits why have they served for so long? Why do they not want this to 
apply to them? Why do you want it to apply only to the next generation?
  Many proponents of other term limits amendments describe those of us 
who did not support those amendments with words such as ``arrogance'' 
and ``hypocrisy.'' I would say to them that the true arrogance is in 
support of term limits which are not applied immediately, and will 
allow them to serve 12 or 19 extra years on top of the 20 or so they 
have already served. If six terms is appropriate for future Members, 
then it must be applicable to those of us who are currently serving.

[[Page H507]]

  If we are to limit the fundamental rights of all Americans to elect 
their representatives, we should do it without a hint of the hypocrisy 
that suggests that term limits are good, but not now, and only for the 
next generation of Congress Members.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit puzzled, as we get into this debate, 
about the use of the word ``hypocrisy.'' I am a sincere supporter of 
term limits. I think the Dingell-Barton amendment is the closest to the 
spirit of the people. In my town meetings and in my public meetings 
with constituents, they are very adamant that the problem they are 
attempting to solve is the problem of entrenched incumbency, especially 
Congressmen and Congresswomen who serve a long tenure in Washington and 
are out of touch with their constituencies.
  The way to address that is through a retroactivity clause. Members 
can argue whether they want three 2-year terms in the House or six 2-
year terms, or two 4-year terms, but I do not think they can argue 
this. If they support term limits, they should support that they be 
retroactive, so we can go at the problem immediately, which is 
incumbents who are out of touch. The Dingell-Barton amendment does 
that.
  If it were to pass and be ratified, whenever it was ratified, anybody 
who had served 6 years prior to their current term or were in their 
sixth term would not be eligible for reelection immediately. It is that 
simple. It is a sincere attempt to address the problem the people want 
addressed, which is removing an entrenched incumbency that is out of 
touch in Washington, DC.
  I believe that this amendment has an excellent chance to get a 
majority. I would encourage all my Republican friends who voted for the 
other term limit amendments to vote for this one, and I would encourage 
my friends on the Democratic side to support the dean of the delegation 
of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] and support this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, two things. First of all, the gentleman 
from Florida characterized this amendment as being antiterm limit. To 
the 2 million people who live in the city of Houston, the fourth 
largest city in our Nation, retroactive term limits or term limits 
which are effective immediately are term limits. That is what they 
voted for in 1991. We have not seen the city of Houston fall into chaos 
as a result of it. The city of Houston is getting along just fine, 
thank you.
  Second of all, if we look at the facts of the situation, the American 
people are already utilizing what is available to them. More than half 
of the Members of the House have served 6 years or less. Less than half 
of the Members have served more than 6 years, and a third of the 
Members have served more than 12 years, so every other bill we have 
voted on today would give Members a minimum of 13 years more. That is 
subterfuge. That is a fraud on the American people. This is the only 
bill that says we will have real term limits, that we will have them 
right now. That is what we ought to vote for.
  If Members are for term limits, vote for the Barton-Dingell bill. If 
they are against term limits, then Members can vote for all the other 
bills.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my remaining 2 
minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
the great State of Texas and the city of Houston [Mr. Gene Green].
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this bipartisan amendment. I 
served 20 years in the legislature in Texas and only 13 in the State 
house and 7 as a State senator, but every election since I have been in 
Congress I have had an opponent, so I am not going to stand here and 
say that I think term limits are something that are that important, 
because I think the voters have a shot at us every time.
  But if we are going to do it, let us be intellectually honest and say 
it ought to cover Gene Green on my 2 terms I have already served. If 12 
years is a magic number, then I should only be able to serve 8 more 
years, if the voters continue to send me back.

                              {time}  1730

  That is why I think the Barton-Dingell substitute is the only one 
that is really intellectually honest, Mr. Chairman.
  I would hope that a lot of Members would recognize that, along with 
the people out in the countryside who feel like term limits are 
necessary, that they would say, if 12 years is magic, in 12 years you 
should go home and do your job, something else, then that should apply 
to those of us who have served here 2 terms, three terms or 10 terms, 
and that way it would cover it. That is why I am proud to support the 
Barton-Dingell amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to show my respects to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the full committee chairman, and to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Canady], subcommittee chairman, for their efforts to 
bring some focus to this debate. I recognize the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], my good friend, for cosponsoring the amendment.
  There is nothing magic about this. It is pretty straightforward. Term 
limits main purpose is to get entrenched incumbents out of office as 
quickly as possible so that there is turnover.
  There is one better way to do that. That is to support retroactivity. 
If my colleagues support what their people support, vote for Dingell-
Barton retroactive term limits and let us send it to the States for 
ratification, if the Senate goes along and sends it out with a two-
thirds vote and the House of Representatives.
  This is not a sham amendment. It is a serious amendment. It is a 
chance to get a majority vote, to be the vote on final passage. We need 
everybody who is for term limits to vote for it, and then we will beat 
the requirement for two-thirds on final passage.
  I want to thank the Chair for his excellent handling of the 
proceedings in this part of the debate, also, the gentleman from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I want to utter great respect for the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida who has handled this bill. I want to express my personal sorrow 
that he finds so few who are ready to stand with him in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The amendment is very simple. It says that term limits take place 
immediately upon ratification of the States, not 19 years later. I 
believe that that is the way it should be. If we are really for term 
limits, then let us have term limits immediately. Let us not allow ours 
to remain around here in some cynicism, building our seniority, 
collecting seniority and eligibility for pensions. Let us just simply 
say that, if the people wanted term limits and they wanted them now, 
they should have them now.
  I think that there is some arrogance on the part of any Member to go 
home and say how he is for term limits when in fact he is for term 
limits 19 years in the future, as it is under the legislation before 
us. Let us have term limits immediately. Let us not debase the 
proposition of term limits by deceiving the people that in fact there 
is going to be term limits but at some distant and indefinable future 
time. Let us have it immediately.
  If term limits are good, they should in fact go into effect at the 
earliest possible time. That is the proper and the responsible vote. 
Vote for term limits now. Do not vote for term limits in the future. If 
we are really for term limits, let us have them now, not at some 
distant and obscure time in the foggy future.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not utilize all the time because I think we have 
exhausted this. I will note that there have not been many Members who 
have spoken against this amendment, but there were 287 Members who 
voted against this amendment in the last Congress. I fully expect that 
we will have about that many voting against it. We will find out in a 
few moments.

[[Page H508]]

 The vote on the amendment in the last Congress was 135 in favor and 
287 against. I think that is some indication that this may not be the 
most viable means for actually moving forward with term limits.
  It might be desirable to move up the effective date, concede that 
argument to the gentleman. I do not think that is necessarily true. 
Certainly the way this amendment is formulated it will cause great, 
potentially great confusion because we could have a situation in which 
the amendment was ratified and became effective right in the middle of 
an election cycle when candidates who had already been nominated for 
office when qualifying had closed, those candidates would be thrown out 
as candidates, the whole electoral system would be up in the air.
  That has happened to a certain extent in certain States because of 
things Federal courts have done. I do not think that is the kind of 
confusion that we should allow for in a constitutional amendment. I 
think that is a serious flaw of this amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that he can 
survive the confusion when the courts do it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the other 
point that I will make is that, when the people in the States have 
dealt with this issue, they have not seen fit to impose this sort of 
requirement that the sponsors of this amendment seek to impose. As a 
matter of fact, as I said earlier, when this issue was dealt with by 
the 23 States that imposed term limits on their congressional 
delegations prior to the Supreme Court decision in U.S. Term Limits 
versus Thornton, none of those States counted service in Congress prior 
to the effective date of the State law in determining the number of 
additional terms that a Member could serve.
  The fact that the people in those States did not view this as such an 
overwhelming issue, I think, is instructive to us. I think the people 
in their wisdom understood that it would take some time to make 
adjustments and to not disrupt the legitimate expectations of people so 
that we could have an orderly process of transition. That is what the 
people have done.
  I would simply suggest again that, although I respect the intention 
of the gentlemen who are offering this amendment, I think it is 
unfortunate that the word ``hypocrisy'' has been bandied about out 
here. That is not a word I would use with respect to any proposal or 
certainly any Member. I think the intention of the gentleman from 
Michigan and the gentleman from Texas is very honorable. But I believe 
that the way we are going to move forward with enacting term limits is 
not through this amendment.
  I believe that the adoption of this amendment would effectively 
derail this effort. The fact of the matter is, that is shown by the 
vote in the House 2 years ago when only 135 Members supported this 
amendment. So if Members are serious about term limits, they should 
focus on these facts and seriously consider what will be effective and 
what will work.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman suggesting in his recent 
discourse that most of the voters that want term limits would be 
unhappy with the immediacy provision that the Dingell amendment 
provides?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that 
the voters would not be pleased with the potential disruption and 
disorder that could be caused by the adoption of this amendment. Again, 
I point to the experience in the States where, in the initiative 
process, where the people were deciding in many cases the form of the 
amendment that they would place on the ballot in those individual 
States, they did not provide for the sort of retroactivity that is 
provided for in this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. He has 
been very gracious in conducting a very fine debate here.
  I would just observe that during the time that the States prepared 
their ratification, Members could, of course, prepare for the 
consequences of the amendment on which we are now voting. In other 
words, if it took 7 years for the States to ratify, Members could have 
7 years during which they could run, during which they could make 
arrangements to seek other office, during which they could make 
arrangements for their retirement. There is no disorder here. We have 
the period between the time that the House and the Senate passed the 
legislation and the time that it is ratified by the States.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will 
knowledge that Members could adjust their expectations based on the 
possible adoption of the amendment. The fact of the matter is, this 
amendment could be ratified in the middle of an election season and 
cause disruption because if it went to the States, the disposition in 
the States would remain uncertain for a period of time, I would expect. 
Once ratified, it would become effective immediately and candidates who 
had been nominated, who had qualified, were standing for office, would 
be thrown out of contention for office and the whole electoral process 
could be thrown up into question.
  Quite frankly, I do not think that is the sort of result that the 
gentleman from Michigan would intend, but the amendment is not drafted 
in a way that takes that possibility into account. I think it is flawed 
in that regard. But, again, I make the point that when the people have 
considered this issue in the various States, they have not adopted a 
provision such as that as suggested today. I believe that the purpose 
of advancing term limits will be advanced by the rejection of this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Florida, who 
has been very responsible here, has one error in his reasoning. He 
keeps averring to the fact that the public in their referenda rejected 
this. But the public in their referenda have generally voted for 6 
years so the gentleman, if he is going to invoke the moral influence of 
the referenda, then he cannot argue for his 12-year position. It is 
true, referenda have said, do not make it retroactive, but they have 
also said overwhelmingly 6 years. What is the referendum, something you 
can turn on and off like a faucet?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the States 
have adopted different limits in different States. In my own State of 
Florida it was 8 years and 12 years. I voted for it. I voted for the 8 
year and the 12 year. I have supported that throughout the process.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, he is speaking in favor of a 12-year limit.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think it 
is apparent that this is not an amendment that is going to be effective 
in advancing the movement to establish term limits. I will not talk 
about Members' motivation. I think that the effect of this is what we 
should be concerned about. That effect is obvious.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the criterion is who is 
being ineffective in advancing term limits, the gentleman's side wins.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that a vote for this 
amendment is going to get us less votes on final passage for term 
limits. It is going to set back the cause of term limits. There are 
going to be fewer Members voting for it and a no vote is what we should 
have.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Chairman, earlier today we heard 
arguments from Members of Congress from Arkansas, from Colorado, from 
Idaho, from Missouri, from Nebraska, from Nevada, and from South 
Dakota. Each of the Members from these States made passionate arguments 
of why we should adopt their individual States' versions of term 
limits.
  They each asked us to adopt these individual versions so that they 
would not have to go

[[Page H509]]

back to their States and tell their constituents that they did not 
support the version of term limits that the people of their State 
required them to support.
  It is evident that we can not adopt all of these different versions 
of an amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a compromise that will not only satisfy the 
concerns of Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and 
South Dakota. My compromise amendment speaks to the concerns of all 
Americans who either support or do not support term limits.
  We can send to the States a single amendment in the form of a 
resolution which would satisfy the concerns of each of the States.
  Mr.Chairman, this motion to recommit, House Joint Resolution 2, 
allows each State of the people thereof, to proscribe the maximum 
number of terms to which a person may be elected to the Senate or House 
of Representatives.
  It is an amendment which gives power to the States from which each of 
us comes, to decide for themselves whether they want to limit the 
number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve and if so, what the 
maximum number of terms the States want to prescribe.
  There is no doubt that we should not be in the business of limiting 
the choice of the American people. We should be inclusive and not place 
limitations on the ability of the American people to vote for the 
Congressperson of their choice.
  However, if there is to be a decision as to who will prescribe the 
maximum number of terms which a person from a particular State may 
serve in the House or Senate, then the States are in a better position 
to make this decision on behalf of the residents of that State. The 
States must decide for themselves the maximum number of terms that a 
Member of Congress from that particular State should serve, not 
Congress. This fundamental change in the framework of the Constitution 
must come from the individual States that combine to make the United 
States of America. Our ``more perfect Union'' is a Union of the States, 
not a Union of the Congress.
  The Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. versus Thorton, has made 
it clear that, without an amendment to the Constitution, the States do 
not have the authority to impose term limits on Members of Congress. 
Consequently, now that we are in the amendment phase of crafting a 
solution to the issue of term limits, the argument can be made that 
this is a power that should be given to the States because of the 
inherent local interest of the people in a particular State to have 
effective representation.
  Currently, the States are prepared to make this decision. No less 
than 23 States passed proposals affecting the terms of Members. It is 
evident that the people of these States know what the best course of 
action for their State.
  If we are to have an amendment which limits the terms of Members of 
Congress,then we should allow the States to be equal partners in that 
decisionmaking process. While we are a body of national sovereignty, 
the sovereignty of the States must not be ignored. We must not dictate 
to the States the parameters by which elected officials in each State 
will serve their constituency. The sovereignty of each individual State 
cries out to be included in this fundamental process of representation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to House Joint Resolution 2 and allow the States to decide 
the maximum number of terms that a Member in the House or Senate may 
serve.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and 
the amendments thereto.
  I do so because I believe that term limits are a poor substitute for 
real solutions to the problem of noncompetitive elections. I support a 
number of initiatives to achieve the same goals as the amendment 
without limiting voters' ability to support the candidate of their 
choice.
  I strongly support limiting the amount of time a Member may serve as 
a committee or subcommittee chair. I believe that congressional 
gridlock, porkbarrel spending, and logrolling is largely rooted in the 
inner power circles of the institution and the domination of the 
legislative process by entrenched committee and subcommittee chairmen. 
In the past, certain individuals have served as the head of a 
particular committee or subcommittee or subcommittee for decades.
  At the beginning of the 103d Congress, I succeeded in having a 6-year 
committee and subcommittee chairmanship limitation included in the 
substitute House rules package proposed by the then minority 
Republicans. Unfortunately, this substitute was defeated on a largely 
party-line vote.
  On the first day of the 104th Congress, however, the House passed 
this limitation and included an 8-year limit on the tenure of the 
Speaker. This rule also applies in the 105th Congress as it was 
retained in the package we adopted on January 7. By preventing any one 
individual from controlling a committee for more than 6 years, this 
important reform will have much the same effect as an overall term 
limit provision. And it has been adopted and is in effect now without 
amending the Constitution. It will go far to take the weight out of 
seniority and ensure that the committees are continually energized with 
new leaders and fresh ideas.
  This provision will affect me personally. I became chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education at the beginning of the 104th Congress, but I will be 
ineligible to serve in that capacity after the 106th Congress.
  In my opinion, we must also reexamine the method by which we 
draw congressional districts in order to solve the problem of 
noncompetitive elections. Congressional districts are frequently drawn 
in order to be politically safe for one party or the other. That is, 
they are drawn so that they are overwhelmingly populated by either 
Democrats or Republicans. As a result, it is difficult for a challenger 
from the other party to get elected. In my opinion, our election laws 
should better take into account the need to encourage competitive 
districts.
  This issue, and other problems with the electoral process, must be 
considered by Congress as part of a legislative and election reform 
package. I strongly supported the effort to enact campaign finance 
reform legislation during the 104th Congress and was disappointed by 
the failure of Congress to adopt such legislation.
  Many elections have become big business for political consultants who 
market candidates in a way which ignores important issues and turns off 
large segments of the electorate. I support the enactment of 
legislation to curtail contributions from political action committees 
[PAC's], promote small instate contributions, and close numerous 
loopholes in current law which allow independent expenditures and the 
use of so-called soft money. I also believe we should strongly consider 
establishing campaign spending limits that are low enough to squeeze 
the professional marketers out of our election process and force 
candidates to return to elections characterized by active personal 
campaigning, volunteer participation, and attention to the issues.
  Even in the absence of term limits, turnover in the House remains 
fairly high. In the past 10 years, about two-thirds of all Members of 
Congress have been replaced, and over half the Members of the House 
have served less than 5 years. I support measures to level the playing 
field for challengers without changing the Constitution or limiting the 
choices available to American voters.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Texas, [Mr. Barton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded vote

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 274, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               AYES--152

     Armey
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Rogan
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner

[[Page H510]]


     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wise

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Torres
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carson
     Clay
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Solomon
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. HERGER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. COX of California and Mr. WAXMAN changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in order to shorten the time that we have 
in here, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] and I both be permitted to strike the last word one time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the Speaker is satisfied now. He promised that 
the first thing we would vote on would be this constitutional 
amendment. I trust he is satisfied that he has made us do that.
  And so now we gather here this evening, the only thing left is the 
McCollum amendment which would allow all of us to serve for almost two 
decades before it would take effect. And in an amazing act of 
inconsistency, the term limits supporters have just voted down the 
Dingell amendment, the only substitute, and with that vote said that 
term limits should not apply to any sitting Member for about 19 years. 
Great work.
  As it has been said eloquently so much by the chairman of Judiciary, 
like the famous prayer of St. Augustine who said, ``Dear God, make me 
pure, but not now.'' When an eight-term Member of the other body can 
claim to support term limits, I think we have a little problem about 
credibility. The proponents of this measure want it, but do not want it 
to apply to themselves.
  So we voted down, with the highest vote of the day, by 152 votes, the 
one unhypocritical amendment on this subject. But we have also voted 
down seven of the almost same identical amendments all day long. We 
have made a mockery of this process.
  The problem is that term limits are no longer an issue to the public. 
Do you not get it? Two-thirds of the Members here have not been here 
three terms. That is why it is not working here. That is why nobody is 
worried about it anywhere that used to be worried about it. In the last 
6 years, we have had a nearly two-third turnover in the House. There is 
simply no remaining rationale for term limits.
  But term limits does not create jobs, increase our standard of 
living, deal with the campaign finance scandal. And so if the majority, 
if the Speaker were really interested in dealing with the advantages of 
incumbency, as he says he is, we would be voting on campaign finance 
reform, not term limits, as the very first measure that we consider in 
the Congress.
  I have not quoted Robert Novak recently, but he states that, you read 
it, ``This reveals the hypocrisy underscoring the avowed support of 
term limits by congressional Republicans. Like their Democratic 
counterparts who frankly and honestly oppose the limits, the 
Republicans are professional politicians who enjoy the good life in 
Washington.'' That is a quote.
  I am still bipartisan. This proposal has not been sincere from the 
beginning, with supporters of it not wanting to apply it as late as the 
year 2016 rather than right now.
  Now, me, I oppose hypocritical term limits and unhypocritical term 
limits. I oppose all term limits. And so I would ask that all of us 
here at the close of this debate join in finally rejecting the base 
bill that will now be voted on offered by my friend the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to address the body about where we are at this moment. 
We are about to take a vote on final passage of the underlying bill, 
House Joint Resolution 2, and the way that is going to happen is that I 
am not going to offer the amendment that I have, the substitute 
amendment, because no amendment that was proposed today received the 
218 votes to supplant the underlying bill or to require us to offer the 
underlying bill as an amendment. And so this is the last debate we are 
going to have today on the question of term limits.
  What we are talking about voting upon in a moment is the one 
proposition that for the foreseeable future has any chance of ever 
becoming a part of the Constitution of the United States to limit 
Members of the House and Senate. It will be only the second time 
Members will get to cast a vote in the history of this country on term 
limits and have it mean something.
  In the last Congress, we had this vote on this precise 12 years in 
the House, 12 years in the Senate, and there were 227 Members of the 
House who voted for it. I am a little fearful today we may not get 227 
because of the State initiatives that were on the ballot in 9 States 
that we know resulted in a series of 7 extra votes here today.
  But I think we should point out a couple of things at this point in 
time. Not a single proposal today on the floor of the House for 6 years 
or 8 years or allowing the States the option of deciding the number of 
years that we would have for term limits received 100 votes. Not a one 
got 100 votes. I believe there are far more than 200 Members, I think 
there are far more than 227 Members in this body who are for term 
limits, and if they had their free will and did not have the scarlet 
letters to be put beside their name in these 9 States

[[Page H511]]

if they voted for this 12-year proposal on final passage, they would 
vote for this and we would have well over the 227, though we would fall 
short of the 290 supermajority required to pass a constitutional 
amendment.
  Why is this important? It is very important because term limits is 
important, because better than 70 percent of the American people still 
believe, as they have for years, that we ought to limit the length of 
time Members of the House and Senate serve. It is important because 
they understand, as we should, that only by voting for this term limits 
proposal today and in the future getting it into the Constitution can 
we ever alter the problem that besets this body and the other of too 
many of our Members too often, too frequently voting because they are 
concerned about being reelected and because of the interests they are 
trying to please rather than for the deliberative process and the good 
of the country as a whole, which I think most of us come here with that 
in mind to do. It is not an affliction of each and every vote, but it 
is an affliction all too often.
  I think it has been best described in The Last Word column that I 
commend to all Members to read in this week's Newsweek Magazine by 
George Will. It is an excellent column both on the reason why we need 
term limits and also on the reason why the U.S. Term Limits effort in 
these States' initiatives is going to cause indigestion and probable 
defeat for this for a long time to come if they get their way.
  It is also important to respond to the critics who say, well, there 
are some of us who do not ever want to really see it, or we have had a 
lot of turnover anyway; three-quarters of the body have turned over in 
the last couple of years.
  It is true, we have had good turnover, but the problem is that for 
those who stay here, the power rests with them. We all know we will 
always have some version of a seniority system in every legislative 
body and those who stay here and do not turn over are the ones who have 
the power as chairmen of committees and the leadership. The only way 
that we can limit that power, the only way that we can end the 
careerism that is the orientation of all too many Members who come here 
is by passing a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of 
Congressmen. And the only one that has the power and a chance of 
passage in this body and the other body any time into the foreseeable 
future is the one that I am proposing today that we are about to vote 
on. That is 12 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate, six 2-
year terms in the House, two 6-year terms in the Senate.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Chairman, in the strongest of terms, if in my colleagues' 
conscience they can get away with it in any way to avoid those State 
initiatives for anyone who supports term limits, I urge them to vote 
for it. This should not be the last vote on term limits. History should 
not record that we only had two Congresses, the 104th and the 105th, 
that voted on it. History should record that we made progress with 
every Congress through the 104th, the 105th, the 106th and whatever is 
necessary until that 290 votes were reached in the House and 67 in the 
Senate and that ultimately this body and that body of the other body 
passed a term limits constitutional amendment and sent it to the States 
for ratification. It is what the public wants, it is the right thing to 
do, it is what our Founding Fathers, if they were here today, would 
want us to do to keep balance proper in this country and to let us vote 
our consciences the right way as the greatest deliberative body in the 
world.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the term limits, 12-year 
provision, the underlying bill, on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Upton] having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the House Joint 
Resolution (H.J. Res. 2) 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, pursuant to 
House Resolution 47, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 211, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin

[[Page H512]]


     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Carson
     Clay
     Obey
     Richardson
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)
  Mr. CAMP changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof), the joint 
resolution was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________