[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1317-S1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. Ashcroft (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist, 
        Mr. Gramm, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, 
        Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Thomas):

  S.J. Res. 16. A joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment 
to limit congressional terms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the document that emerged from the 
Philadelphia convention has become the longest lived national 
constitution in the world. It was the product of a sense of urgency, of 
mission, of common purpose. And years from now, after we have long 
since passed, it will endure, standing unchallenged by the varied 
crises of human affairs.
  The Philadelphia delegates crafted this document on what they 
believed to be fundamental principles: Majority rule, dual sovereignty, 
one man, one vote. The Framers also recognized, however, that a lasting 
government would have to be not only durable and stable, but flexible 
enough to evolve with the emerging Nation. For this reason, they 
included an article for amendment that would allow the document to be 
changed over time.
  Since 1787, more than 10,600 constitutional amendments have been 
introduced. Only 27 have been adopted. Many of the proposed amendments 
have bordered on the ridiculous. One called for the creation of four 
regional Presidents. Others have called for the legalization of 
dueling, or changing the Nation's name to the United States of the 
World.
  The amendment I introduce today, however, is neither ridiculous nor 
unimportant. In fact, I would suggest that is one of the defining 
issues which this Congress will face. For it cuts to the very heart of 
who we are as a party, as a polity, as a people. It is a term-limits 
constitutional amendment. If enacted, the resolution would limit 
Members of Congress to three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives 
and two terms in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, term limits are a tried and tested reform that the 
American people have seen operate firsthand: For the President since 
1951, for 41 Governors, for 20 State legislatures, and for hundreds of 
local officials nationwide. Indeed, this is at least one reason why 
congressional term limits enjoy such widespread support: Voters have 
witnessed their ameliorative effects and want them extended to the 
national legislature.
  Some will undoubtedly argue that the 1996 election and the notable 
increase in new Members weakens the case for term limits. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. Ninety-four percent of all the Members who 
sought reelection last year were returned to Washington. The turnover 
that did occur was largely the result of voluntary departures, not 
competitive elections.
  Why do reelection rates continue at all-time highs? Because 
incumbency is, and always has been, the single greatest perk in 
politics. Committee assignments translate into campaign contributions. 
Bills mean bucks. The simple fact remains, the average incumbent spends 
more of the taxpayers' money on franked mail than the average 
challenger spends on his entire campaign.
  Reapportionment's role in ensuring long-term incumbency must also be 
considered. Many State officials are acutely aware of the benefits 
derived from high reelection rates. Consequently, they manipulate 
districts in a way which maximizes the potential for incumbents to 
return to Washington. This is not only an argument for limited tenure, 
it is an argument for adopting House limits of less than 10 years.
  As with all good ideas, this reform has occasioned some controversy. 
Primarily, opposition has come from careerists in the Congress whose 
livelihood is at stake. These self-proclaimed keepers of the public 
faith worry aloud about the impact of lost legislative wisdom. And, in 
the cloakrooms and Capitol corridors, they whisper about ``protecting 
the people from themselves.''
  Opponents seem to believe that only seasoned legislators in a 
professional Congress can effectively deal with the issues of the day. 
Mr. President, it is the height of arrogance and elitism to suggest 
that any one Senator is essential to our Government. The strength of 
American democracy is that the people are the source of Government's 
legitimacy. Because, as Alexander Hamilton aptly noted more than two 
centuries ago, ``Here, Sir, the people govern.''
  These assertions also stand at odds with the great triumph of 
individualism that is America. For they are based on the flawed 
supposition that only a limited number of citizens are

[[Page S1318]]

qualified to serve. Richard Henry Lee put it best. ``I would not urge 
the principle of rotation,'' said Lee, ``if I believed the consequence 
would be a uniformed Federal legislature; but I have no apprehension of 
this in this enlightened country.'' Indeed, no more than a cursory look 
at the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and Paine reveals the 
healthy respect they had for the average citizen.
  Mr. President, I share the Founders' belief that there is wisdom in 
the people. The resolution I bring before the body today is a 
commonsense reform that the citizenry undeniably wants, a remedy our 
Republic desperately needs, a reform whose time has come.
  Rotation in office has worked for the President, scores of Governors, 
and countless others across this great land. Let us extend its 
therapeutic effects to the Halls of the U.S. Congress. I beg this 
proposal's adoption.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a constitutional 
amendment to limit congressional service to 6 years in the House and 12 
years in the Senate. This proposal is identical to the one introduced 
in the 104th Congress. On May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court 
invalidated the term limits that 23 different States had imposed on 
congressional service. The Court further declared that Congress lacks 
the constitutional authority to enact term limits by statute. 
Therefore, enacting this reform, which polls consistently show that 
more than 70 percent of the American people support, will require 
passing a constitutional amendment.
  Although this proposal is not about denigrating the institution of 
Congress or those who have ably served lengthy tenures, public 
confidence in elected officials does remain abysmally low. Given the 
many scandals involving public officials, the myriad of negative 
campaign commercials, and the inability of Congress to solve major 
national problems like the budget deficit, I can hardly blame the 
American people for being cynical. Nothing could be farther from the 
basic tenets of democracy than a professional ruling class, yet despite 
the supposedly high turnover in the last three congressional elections, 
that is essentially what Congress has become.
  Each of the last three Congresses has had unusually large freshman 
classes, but the percentage of those returned to Congress still exceeds 
the typical return rate prior to 1941. I acknowledge that altering the 
way we elect Members of Congress is a task not to be undertaken 
lightly, and people are justified in asking, what has changed since the 
ratification of the Constitution that necessitates this proposal? To 
them, I answer simply: The trend toward careerism in Congress. Although 
the system has worked relatively well for 200 years, the Founding 
Fathers viewed service in Congress not as a permanent career but as an 
interruption to a career. For the first 150 years of the Republic, in 
keeping with this notion, those who served in public office typically 
stepped down after only a few years. While incumbents were still almost 
always re-elected when they chose to run, a turnover rate of 50 percent 
every 2 years in the House was common throughout the 19th century. In 
fact, only 24 percent of the Members of the House in 1841 were sworn in 
again 2 years later. George Washington voluntarily stepped down after 
two terms as President because he understood the value of returning to 
private life and giving someone else the chance to serve. Over the last 
few decades, however, Members of Congress have become much less likely 
to step down voluntarily, so the average length of service in Congress 
has steadily increased. Because of this trend toward careerism, 
Congress now more closely resembles a professional ruling class than 
the citizen legislature our Founding Fathers envisioned.
  This is significant because a Congress full of career legislators 
behaves differently than a citizen legislature. Over time, after years 
of inside-the-beltway thinking, elected officials tend to lose touch 
with the long-term best interests of the Nation. Instead, they become 
slaves to short-term public opinion in their never-ending quest for re-
election. Last year's Medicare debate is a good example of how constant 
elections, and the lure of short-term political advantage, make it 
harder to make the tough decisions. The constant flow of pork-barrel 
projects back home, the practice of effectively buying our 
constituents' votes with funds from the U.S. Treasury, is another 
example of how what may be beneficial to politicians at the next 
election is not necessarily in the best interests of the Nation. When 
Congress is not a career for its Members, their career will not be on 
the line every time they cast a vote, so I believe that term limits 
would more likely produce individuals who would take on the tough 
challenges that lie ahead.
  To act in the long-term national interest, elected officials also 
need to live under the laws they pass, which is why we enacted the 
Congressional Accountability Act in the last Congress. Similarly, it is 
important that elected officials return home after their term expires 
and live with the consequences of the decisions they made while in 
Congress. Just as the Congressional Accountability Act makes elected 
officials more cognizant of how laws affect average Americans in the 
long run, term limits, by requiring Members of Congress to return to 
private life, would encourage Members to consider the long-term effects 
of their decisions instead of just the short-term political 
consequences.
  Moreover, little doubt exists that power exercises a gradual, 
corruptive influence over those who have it. The Founding Fathers 
recognized this and used a system of checks and balances to limit the 
power of any one individual. When elected officials are up here for 
decades at a time, their accumulating power and growing disregard for 
the national interest often cause them to become arrogant in office. 
Term limits, by further dispersing power among more individuals, I 
believe, would lead to a more honest breed of politicians.
  Term limits will also make elections more competitive which will, in 
turn, lead to better representation. One only needs to look at the 1996 
elections to see that most competitive elections are for open seats. 
Twelve-year limits on Senate service would guarantee every State an 
open-seat election at least once every 12 years unless a challenger 
dislodges an incumbent. Furthermore, term-limited officeholders will be 
more likely to seek a higher office. A Member of the House who is term 
limited will be more likely to run for the Senate than a Congressman 
who is not term limited and can easily win re-election to the House for 
many years to come. A term-limited Senator will be more likely to run 
for Governor or another office instead of seeking easy re-election to 
the Senate.
  Opponents of term limits make many arguments against the proposal, 
confident that they know better than more than 70 percent of the 
American people. Perhaps the most prevalent argument against term 
limits is that Congress will lose many good people. While this is true, 
as I have already pointed out, we will be gaining many good people as 
well. More to the point though, we should not be so arrogant as to 
think that we are the only ones who can do this job. I do not believe 
that the 535 people who currently serve in Congress are the only 535 
people out there who can do the job. Two hundred years ago, people 
wondered how the Nation could ever survive without the leadership of 
George Washington, but President Washington knew that the system was 
stronger than any one man, and that many people were fit to be 
President. Not only do I think that many people besides us can do the 
job, but the argument that only the 535 currently serving in Congress 
possess the ability to solve the Nation's problems assumes that we are 
doing a good job now. A $5 trillion debt, Medicare and Social Security 
on unsustainable courses, an out-of-control campaign finance system, 
and unacceptably high levels of crime make this assumption dubious. A 
corollary of this argument is that term limits will result in Congress 
having little institutional memory. However, if the legislative process 
and the bills that come out of this place are so complicated as to 
require more than 12 years of experience to understand, then Congress 
is doing too much. The average citizen, with the additional focus of 
full-time attention to the issues with which Congress concerns itself, 
should be more than capable of doing the job.
  The other main argument against term limits is that we already have

[[Page S1319]]

term limits in the form of elections. However, this reasoning has two 
problems. First, incumbents enjoy a tremendous advantage in elections. 
The ability to raise money, greater name recognition, a staff already 
in place, constituent service, and simple voter inertia help incumbents 
win their races more than 90 percent of the time. Second, the American 
people, just as they have a right to elect their representatives in 
Congress, have every right to place qualifications on whom they may 
elect. Opponents of term limits say that the voters ought to be able to 
elect whomever they want, but when the American people ratified the 
Constitution, they agreed not to elect anyone to the Senate who is 
younger than 30 years of age or not a resident of the State he or she 
seeks to represent. If the voters choose, and more than 70 percent of 
them do, they can also declare that people who have already served 12 
years in the Senate may not be elected to the Senate again.
  It is my hope that we will move quickly to debate this measure. 
Perhaps no other proposal as popular with the American people has 
received so little attention from Congress. In fact, Congress has been 
so reticent with respect to this issue that some term-limits advocates 
are now asking the States to call a constitutional convention. The 
debate in the last Congress was the first serious discussion of this 
issue in Congress in the history of the Nation. Speaker Gingrich has 
already said that term limits will be the first item of business this 
year in the other body. Finally, other tough decisions are imminent 
including balancing the budget, saving Medicare, and putting Social 
Security on a permanently sustainable course. The single most important 
thing we can do to cultivate an environment where Congress can 
effectively address these long-term problems is to enact term limits 
immediately. Therefore, I urge my colleagues' support.

                          ____________________