[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           REFORM TERM LIMITS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JO ANN EMERSON

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 13, 1997

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, term limit supporters across Missouri--
like me--are rightfully disappointed that the vote on congressional 
term limits is doomed to failure. I am a cosponsor of a constitutional 
amendment calling for tough, 12-year term limits for Senators and 
Representatives, alike. It had been my hope that a united stand for 
term limits would finally lead to real limits with teeth. On Wednesday, 
the House of Representatives will vote on term limits and it appears my 
vote in favor will be for naught, thanks to a problem that has grown 
out of control--division among conservative ranks.
  Last November, voters in Missouri and eight other States approved so-
called scarlet letter constitutional amendments. These scarlet letter 
amendments require Members of Congress from Missouri and the other 
affected States to vote for term limits of 6 years in the House and 12 
in the Senate. If Members don't vote for these particular limits, or if 
Members vote for different limits, the phrase ``disregarded voter 
instruction on term limits'' will appear next to their names on the 
next ballot if they choose to seek re-election. Disregarding for a 
moment the fact that ballots will soon be cluttered with inaccurate 
information, this sounds like a good idea. Why not put a little muscle 
behind the campaign to enact term limits which, after all, are 
supported by 70 percent of Americans, ourselves included.
  A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the vote on term limits. 
As sure as the Mississippi flows south, the vote on term limits today 
will fail. It won't fail for lack of general term limit support, but 
will fail because of the handcuffs placed on the 30 Members of Congress 
who come from States where the scarlet letter initiative passed. Each 
State constitutional amendment--they are all different--requires that 
Members from those States vote for different versions of term limits. 
Even though term limit supporters garnered 227 votes in the last 
Congress (it takes two-thirds of Congress, or 290 votes, to pass a 
constitutional amendment) and even though more supporters of term 
limits were elected to Congress last November, there's no chance that 
tough, commonsense congressional limits can not pass. Missouri's 
scarlet letter amendment has joined with similar, but different, 
amendments in other States and backfired against the shared goal of 
conservatives to enact tough term limits.
  So how did this mess come to be? Most Missouri voters will probably 
be surprised to learn that the scarlet letter amendment, when it 
appeared on the ballot in the voting booth, deceptively asked if voters 
support term limits, but did not state that Members would be prohibited 
from supporting other term limit bills if the three term limit fails. 
In fact, the fine print of this amendment explicitly instructs Members 
to vote against all other term limit bills. Put simply, the amendment 
reburies limits of three terms in the House, or nothing at all.
  With that in mind, I intend to vote for every single reasonable 
measure that would limit congressional terms to either 6, 8, 10 or 12 
years when the House considers term limit legislation. I campaigned in 
support of term limits and intend to carry through on that commitment.
  Term limit supporters should consider this farce. The scarlet letter 
will likely be invoked even if I vote for the 6-year term limit, which 
is certain to fail despite my support. The scarlet letter will be 
invoked simply because I later vote for a different term limit bill 
that has a realistic chance of passing.
  As if that weren't enough, different versions of the scarlet letter 
laws passed in each of the nine States. Thus, if Members from those 
States precisely follow those instructions, they must all vote for a 
different version of term limits--and against any others. It's the 
equivalent of asking the offensive line of the St. Louis Rams to sack 
their own quarterback each time they take to the field.
  In the end, I will vote in favor of each and every serious term limit 
amendment brought before the House this week. If that means I invoke a 
misleading scarlet letter, then so be it. Those of us charged with the 
responsibility of dealing with the legislative agenda of the people on 
a practical basis are duty-bound to deliver what is feasible, and that 
includes term limits that stand a chance of passing Congress. We will 
never succeed in passing real term limits as long as outside groups 
continue to divide conservatives who support them. In our efforts to 
pass term limits with teeth, we should remember that when united, we 
win, when divided, we fail.

                          ____________________