Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)

[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

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

[[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

[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:

``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

[[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

[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.

____________________