[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E289-E290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 12, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under

[[Page E290]]

     consideration the bill 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:

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition 
to the rule on House Joint Resolution 2, reported out of the Rules 
Committee on yesterday. There were a total of 19 amendments that were 
considered by the Rules Committee: 14 by Republicans and 5 by 
Democrats. This unequivocally points out the division in the House on 
this issue; not just between Republicans and Democrats, but between 
Republicans who support term limits and a good number of those who do 
not.
  I must point out that even the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Congressman Hyde, does not support this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not in favor of Members of Congress deciding who 
the American people should and should not vote for.
  However, it is my position that if we are to have a constitutional 
amendment on term limits, it should be the people who make that 
individual choice. It will be the people who are most affected by this 
amendment to the Constitution, so why not let the people decide if they 
want term limits.
  Mr. Speaker, the two amendments that I proposed would have done just 
that. The first would have given the States the power to prescribe the 
maximum number of terms for a particular State. This would have allowed 
a State to tailor its limits to the needs and the will of the people of 
that State.
  It was a compromise amendment which allowed the States that wanted 
term limits to have them and the States that did not want term limits 
to reject them.
  It is evident that we can not adopt different versions of an 
amendment to the Constitution. But we can allow the States to adopt 
their own versions of term limits.
  The Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits versus Thorton, has made it 
clear that, without an amendment to the Constitution, the States do not 
have the authority to impose them limits on Members of Congress.
  Consequently, now that we are in the amendment phase of creating a 
solution for the issue of term limits, the argument can be made that 
this is a power that should be given to the States. The legislatures of 
each State have an inherent local interest in developing a term limits 
solution for their particular State.
  The States are now prepared to make a decision of term limits. Twenty 
three States have passed proposals affecting Members' terms of office. 
These States legislatures are now poised to take action. Why not let 
them take action on an amendment that would give them the power to 
decide the maximum number of terms for their Members.
  My second amendment went one step further than State action 
empowerment. It gave the power of ratifying a term-limits amendment to 
the people of the individual States.
  It allowed the individual voters of each State to come together using 
the convention process to vote on whether they wanted to ratify this 
constitutional amendment.
  In keeping with the spirit of the Founding Fathers of our great 
country, this amendment lets the American people decide who will 
represent them in the Congress of the United States and for exactly how 
long.
  Article V. of the U.S. constitution prescribes the ratification 
methods that may be used in ratifying an amendment to the Constitution. 
It may either be by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States or 
by conventions in three-fourth thereof.
  The Founding Fathers granted Congress the power to decide which mode 
of ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be used.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a time such as this, in deciding an issue which 
will fundamentally change the nature of the Congress, that it would 
behoove us to consult with and defer to the American people.
  The convention process allows us this opportunity. It allows for the 
American people to speak to an issue and to participate in the 
shaping and defining of that issue.

  There is no doubt that in this democracy, the ratification of an 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution, utilizing the convention method, is 
by far the most democratic. The people of the United States would have 
the opportunity to participate in a process that is fundamental to the 
American way of openness and inclusion. The voters of America would 
have the opportunity to unquestionably validate this amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States.
  In doing so, this will not be the first time that an amendment to the 
Constitution was ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the 
several States. The 21st amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in section 
3, provides for ratification by conventions in the several States. 
Section 3 of the 21st amendment states:

       This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been 
     ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions 
     in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, 
     within seven years from the date of submission hereof to the 
     States by the Congress.

  This 21st amendment, which repealed the 18 amendment prohibition of 
intoxicating liquors was ratified on December 5, 1933. Delegates in 25 
States were elected in statewide at-large elections, delegates in 14 
States were elected by congressional districts and 4 States used a 
combination of the two.
  Laws providing for ratifying conventions were passed in 43 States and 
16 of these States passed permanent statutes for future referrals of 
amendments. Clearly, this was a democratic effort by the people of the 
United States.
  I must note that the very Constitution by which we have authority to 
sit and do the business of the American people was ratified by the 
convention method. Article VII, of the U.S. Constitution states:

       The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be 
     sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between 
     the States so ratifying the same.

If the convention method of ratification was good enough for the 
ratification of our great Constitution, then the convention method of 
ratification must be good enough for amending this same Constitution.
  If the supporters of term limits were genuine about the concerns of 
the American people, they would have voted for these two amendments.
  I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that they are not genuine. The 
rejection of these two amendments, each of which would have given the 
decisionmaking authority to the States and to the voters, reveals that 
the people who are trying to push term limits down the throats of the 
American people only are genuine about taking power away from the 
voters of America.
  Consequently, I urge my colleagues not to vote in favor of this rule.

                          ____________________