[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1545-H1549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             MAJOR OVERHAUL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
DeSantis) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any question that, 
if you go anywhere in this country, the American people believe that 
this town, Washington, and this institution in particular need a major 
overhaul.
  The Founding Fathers conceived of a system in which individual 
Americans, individual citizens would stand for election and they would 
go up as representatives of the people, but they were no better than 
the people. They didn't live under different rules than the rest of the 
people. They were not part of a ruling class, but, really, part of a 
servant culture. That was the idea.
  Well, we have come a long way. Washington, D.C., is really the bane 
of the existence for many, many people in our society. It hinders our 
economy. You have people here who engage in self-dealing. It is not 
acting consistently with how this system was envisioned.
  So there are a lot of things I would like to do:
  I think Congress needs to be forced to live under all the laws they 
pass and enact for other people.
  I think you need to get rid of a lot of the perks that Members of 
Congress get, including pensions for Members of Congress.
  But I think if there was one thing that, I think, really cries out 
for reform, it is that we need to have term limits for Members of 
Congress. I don't think there is any way you are ever going to be able 
to overhaul this culture unless we do that.
  There was a time when people would get elected and the Founders 
didn't think anyone would want to be here that long. You would go, you 
would serve, then you would go back and live under the laws that you 
passed and continue your pursuits as a citizen. Well, somewhere along 
the line, that really changed. Then people come in,

[[Page H1546]]

and it is almost like that is the main thing that they focus on: just 
staying here, sometimes in perpetuity. People have served 40, 50 years, 
and I don't think that that has turned out well for our country.
  I think if you had term limits, I think you would really open up the 
process for new blood. I think people would come in here with a 
reformer spirit, new ideas, and really be part of a reform movement in 
Washington, D.C.
  It is often said: Well, gee, term limits. But the American people get 
their choice. They get to vote in the election. The fact of the matter 
is, the way that our electoral system works, millions and millions of 
Americans have no functional choice simply because maybe their district 
is only going to elect someone from one party. Maybe you have the power 
of incumbency that just makes it so that challengers are never going to 
be able to get traction.

                              {time}  1715

  The whole campaign finance system is orchestrated to benefit 
incumbents, so we don't really just have where the American people have 
a choice. I think you have a structured choice, which typically leads 
to only one outcome. So I am not really somebody that thinks that this 
is all just that the American people are so happy that people are 
getting returned here all the time.
  Another, I think, objection that some people said for term limits is 
that: Well, gee, if you term-limit people, you have new people in who 
don't necessarily know how the system works. It is just going to be all 
the staff that are going to run it or the lobbyists that are going to 
run it.
  I have got news for you. That is pretty much what happens already. I 
mean, a lot of these omnibus bills, those get done by staff behind 
closed doors. Staff wields a lot of power on these committees. And 
these are not elected individuals. Many of them work hard. I respect a 
lot of them, but they are exercising, in many ways, authority that 
should be exercised by the Members, themselves. So I think that problem 
is real, but I think it is already here.
  I think if you had new people coming in, I think a lot of those 
people would probably want to bring in some of their own staff that 
would be more reflective of their ideas and principles rather than rely 
on people that have been here a long time who really become accustomed 
to a system that is not working very well.
  I am proud to have cosponsored the bill to enact term limits on 
Members of the House and Members of the Senate. We do three terms for 
the House, and two terms for the Senate. So if someone wants to serve 
in the House then serve in the Senate, they could serve 18 years. That 
is a long time, and I think you would be able to really do some good 
things during that period.
  I think what it does is it really shifts the focus of somebody that 
comes here, because right now, if you get elected to the House, you are 
on the low end of the pecking order in terms of seniority. I mean, you 
almost have to just sit around here for 10, 15, 20 years to be in a 
position where you could really make a huge difference. I think what 
that does is that creates a culture in which people want to stay here, 
and that is kind of the main thing that happens once you get here.
  I think, if you had term limits, the main thing that people would be 
thinking about is: Okay. You know you are term-limited. Your time is 
limited. Let's make the most of that. I think you would see a lot of 
people really, really perform much better. You would have people who 
could come in as freshmen and have more of an impact because the system 
wouldn't be dominated by seniority. There would be less favoritism, 
less backroom dealing. So I think it is a very, very positive reform.
  We have been voting on random things here lately. I think it would be 
great if we could come here and offer some reforms to the system, 
constitutional reforms, like term limits, like a balanced budget 
amendment, like an amendment making Congress live under the laws that 
everybody else does. I think that would be a breath of fresh air for 
the American people.
  Here is the thing. We talk about how we have the division and the 
rancor in our politics, and even in this institution; but if you look, 
term limits is something that, regardless of party, regardless of 
ideology, regardless of age, regardless of gender, regardless of race, 
Americans support in overwhelming numbers.
  So I think that is an example of where the American people are 
actually very united for this. But when you have the governing class in 
Washington, that is where the divisions are, because many people don't 
want to see those types of reforms here.
  But there is agreement throughout American society, and so if we want 
to start having a more unified country, we should be listening to the 
American people. When they are speaking loudly and consistently over 
20, 25 years that term limits is something they want, we should heed 
that call, and we should be voting on that, and we should enact it, 
passing it out of the House, passing it out of the Senate, and then 
sending it to the States for ratification. What a win-win it would be, 
both for this institution, to show the American people we are 
listening, and then, obviously, it would be a very positive reform to 
have enacted.
  I am really happy that, as new people come in, that they have the 
reformer's spirit. One of the guys who just got elected this last 
year--it is pretty clear when people get up here whether they are in it 
for the right reasons or not, and I think there are probably few people 
in the whole House who have been more dedicated to reform and making 
this institution serve the American people rather than rule over the 
American people. It is a great honor for me to be able to yield to my 
friend from Iowa (Mr. Blum), the chairman of the House Term Limits 
Caucus.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. 
DeSantis) for hosting this Special Order on term limits and giving me 
the opportunity to speak on this most important subject.
  Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing 
the same thing over and over and over again, yet expecting different 
results. That quote sums up Washington, D.C. We keep sending the same 
people back here over and over and over, yet we expect things will 
improve; we expect things will change.
  Congressional approval ratings, if you haven't checked, are in the 
single digits. It is clear that the American people aren't happy with 
the job we are doing. They want change in Washington, D.C.
  But, if we truly want to change Washington, we need to heed Albert 
Einstein's advice. We need to send different people here. We need to do 
things differently.
  Changing the way Congress operates should start with enacting term 
limits. I firmly believe congressional term limits would restore the 
public's confidence in the legislative branch and return this body back 
to the design intended by our Founding Fathers.
  I have just been here, as my friend, Mr. DeSantis said, for over a 
year, and I can confidently say that term limits for our politicians 
would be a huge step forward in changing the culture here in 
Washington, D.C., and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first elected office I have ever held. I am 
a career small-business person. In the private sector, if we don't 
listen to our customers, we go out of business.
  In Congress, our customers are the American people, and they are 
strongly in favor of term limits. Recent polls show overwhelming 
support. Over 75 percent of Americans want term limits. This support, 
as Mr. DeSantis said, crosses party lines, with strong majorities from 
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.
  Unfortunately, Congress has not listened to our customers. 
Legislation to institute term limits continues to sit in committee, 
without receiving a vote. While many Members of Congress profess 
support for term limits back in their districts, when their plane 
crosses the Potomac, something seems to change.
  One of the first things I did after being sworn in was to launch the 
bipartisan Term Limits Caucus, along with my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
O'Rourke). I also cosponsored legislation from my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
DeSantis), limiting House Members to serving no more than three terms 
and

[[Page H1547]]

Senators to serving no more than two terms.

  I did this because, as someone coming to Congress from the private 
sector, I believe Washington suffers from a lack of fresh, innovative 
ideas. Also, Washington suffers from a lack of political courage on the 
part of career politicians to implement those changes.
  The root of our problem is that our politicians are incentivized by 
this system to care more about staying in office rather than doing what 
is best for the country.
  Most candidates campaign for the U.S. House and they say something to 
the effect, ``Washington, D.C., is broken. Washington, D.C., is broken. 
It must change.'' They say this during the campaign. Most come here for 
the right reasons, but, over time, the system grinds them down. The 
special interests get their proverbial ``nose under the tent,'' and 
before long, special interests own a Congressman.
  It seems to me, the only special interest group not represented in 
Washington is ``We, the People.'' The end result is most become part of 
the very problem they came to Washington, D.C., to fix.
  Our Founding Fathers never intended for public service to be a 
career. Serving in Congress was supposed to be a temporary sacrifice 
made for the public good, not a profitable, long-term profession 
treated like a family business.
  By limiting terms politicians can serve in office, we can realign the 
incentives. When Members of Congress know they will only serve for a 
short amount of time, they will be incentivized to actually tackle the 
big problems facing America today: tackling our $19 trillion debt that 
is growing, tackling the looming insolvency of Social Security and 
Medicare, and tackling the securing of our borders and the ever-growing 
Federal bureaucracy that stifles economic growth and holds down wages 
for your average American.
  Mr. DeSantis, I recognize the long odds of Congress voting to place 
term limits on themselves. As I often say, that is much like asking 
turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving, and we know how that would end up. 
But I will keep pushing Congress to act, because it is what the 
American people want.
  In the meantime, there are some positive active developments at the 
State level that I would like to highlight.
  Florida recently became one of the first States to officially call 
for an Article V constitutional term limits convention thanks to the 
hard work of Florida activists and fantastic groups like U.S. Term 
Limits. I commend the Florida Legislature and hope other States will 
soon follow suit.
  As President Reagan once said, a ``convention is a safety valve 
giving the people a chance to act if Congress refuses to.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am not here to criticize individual Members of 
Congress, and not all of my colleagues who have been in office for 
decades are part of this problem; but it is time Congress listened to 
our customers and gives our customers what they want: a vote on term 
limits. It is the right thing to do, and it may be our last and best 
chance to restore trust in government and make Congress work for the 
American people once again.
  Once again, I thank Mr. DeSantis for the opportunity to discuss this 
most important subject. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American 
people and join the Term Limits Caucus and cosponsor term limit 
legislation.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Iowa.
  The thing is that you bring up a good point. It is very difficult to 
get people to want to term-limit themselves. So you and I are on a bill 
together that tries to be reasonable about it and say: Look, you know, 
we are willing to compromise to get term limits. You have Members who 
have been here for 12, 14 years and they are trying to put themselves 
in a position for a chairmanship, whatever, and they joined under 
certain rules, they kind of played the game, and they are preparing for 
maybe this to be the pinnacle of their career. I get why someone in 
that situation would not want to do it.
  Our proposal says: Okay. Let's do term limits, but then we will phase 
it in as new Members come. So that is a kind of a gradual term limit 
enactment, and within a short while you would have term limits across 
the board. I mean, that is something that is a reasonable compromise to 
deal with some of the Members that have misgivings.
  I think my friend from Iowa points out, I mean, if this were 
something that were to be done via Article V of the Constitution and 
submitted through the States around Congress, that would be enacted in 
a New York minute. I mean, that will sail through every State 
legislature without question, and you would end up having term limits.
  So I think there are two different routes to take, but I think 
knowing that there is a desire for this, I think it would be good for 
this institution to say: Okay. We hear you. Let's debate it; let's put 
everyone on record. Then the American people can hold people 
accountable accordingly.
  That is really, I think, what is frustrating. It would be one thing 
if term limits just failed every year, but, really, it gets bottled up 
every year because people don't want to be on record against term 
limits. I think that those days need to be over.
  I ask my friend from Iowa, as you go around your district--you have 
Republicans, Democrats; you have a very politically diverse district--I 
mean, is there anybody who is out there saying don't do term limits?
  Mr. BLUM. In 3 years of campaigning, I have not yet, Mr. DeSantis, 
met one person in my district in northeast Iowa that is against term 
limits. Everyone wants us to hold a vote on term limits.
  And I consistently say this gets buried in committee because the 
worst nightmare of anybody in this body is to have to go on record as 
voting against term limits because, as I said in my speech, they go 
back to their districts and they say they are for reforming Congress.
  They are against the pension program. They are against first-class 
air travel. They are against $1,200-a-month luxury car leases. They are 
against becoming lobbyists when they retire from this body. They say 
they are for term limits. Their plane crosses the Potomac. They get in 
this body. They don't want to vote on those things because I think they 
are not really against them.
  People are tired of that. They are seeing through it. They are 
demanding that we have this vote. All we ask--all you are asking, all I 
am asking--is let's get this out of committee. Let's have a vote on 
this floor and see what happens. It may fail, but at least we got the 
vote; at least the people in my district and in your district in 
Florida were represented and had the chance to have a voice.

                              {time}  1730

  I think this is an overwhelmingly bipartisan issue. I am Republican, 
and my district is Democratic. But Democrats want a vote on term limits 
as well.
  I come from the private sector, Ron, and we listen to our customers. 
Our customers are the American voters, the American citizens.
  We are not listening to them. We are ignoring them. I think we are 
seeing it now in this political season, that people are upset with what 
goes on in Washington, D.C.
  Our approval rating--and it has been well earned--is in the single 
digits. I think it would go so far if we would just hold some votes and 
try to reform this body because people often tell me: Before you tell 
me to reform the way my family spends their money, why don't you clean 
up your own House first? I couldn't agree with them more.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. I think that, if we were to approach it and say that we 
need to do term limits, we have to make sure Congress lives under the 
same rules, no special treatment under ObamaCare, none of that, let's 
eliminate the pensions for Congress--and the thing is you brought up 
people being lobbyists after they are in Congress.
  If you did term limits, guess what. Then you are going to increase 
the supply of former Members of Congress. So being a lobbyist wouldn't 
be as lucrative because there would be a lot more people who are out 
there.
  I think actually more people would say: Maybe I will go back to my 
home State and start working in business there and maybe have to come 
to terms

[[Page H1548]]

with some of the laws that I imposed on the private sector and see how 
that works.
  So I think it would be good for the performance in office, but I also 
think, as Members left office, it probably would drive more people to 
the actual private sector rather than being inside the Beltway because 
you will just have too many former Members and I don't think the pay 
will be as lucrative.
  Right now, I don't know if this is accurate, but I have seen 
statistics where it is upwards of 80 percent of people who serve in the 
Congress go on to be lobbyists in Washington. So you understand the 
system, then you go out and are lobbying to grease the skids in that 
system. That is not the way I think that we want this system to be 
operating.
  So let me ask you this: In terms of getting a vote, what do you think 
we need to be doing to impress upon other colleagues so that we can 
start to develop some momentum to try to get a vote on this?
  Mr. BLUM. Some of them need to lose their reelection campaigns. I 
have consistently said, Ron, that true change never comes from inside 
the Beltway in Washington, D.C. It always comes from out in America.
  What we need are grass-roots activists, people that follow what we 
are doing, to call, to email, and to text to let our Representatives 
know that you want a vote on term limits.
  As a Representative, and I am sure you would agree that those matter. 
We listen. I listen. We track every phone call, and I get a report at 
the end of the day saying:

       Here is who called from your district, and here is what 
     they wanted.

  So it makes a difference. Change never comes from in Washington, D.C.
  I would also like to follow up on another point that you made 
earlier. It was a great point, and that is seniority.
  I came here as a freshman 14 months ago and I quickly found out that 
everything in Congress is based on seniority. Not to take anything away 
from these fine people that have been here a long time, they have 
worked very hard, they have paid their dues, and it is nothing 
personal, but people wonder why change can't happen in Washington, D.C.
  It is because we have the same people running the show year in, year 
out, term in, term out, because it is based on seniority.
  A young person like my--well, I shouldn't say young. A young 
politician--I am 60 years old--doesn't really have a chance to impact 
change much because the power structure is all based on seniority here.
  I wish they would look at seniority out in the real world, in the 
private sector. What did you do to build a company? What did you do to 
educate children? What did you do in the medical community?
  That seniority should count as well, just not your time spent in this 
body. So that is a great point. That is why I think things don't 
change. We need change. Change is good. We need new ideas and fresh 
ideas and people with political courage.
  Another thing that has been a little bit disappointing to me is the 
lack of political courage, to take a stand and to plant the flag even 
if it is going to be unpopular in the district. If you think it is the 
right thing to do, go for it. Have political courage.
  People have said to me: How do we know you won't change if we send 
you to Washington?
  I have consistently said: Because I am not afraid to be unelected. I 
want to be reelected. I will work hard. I will want to win a second 
term. But I am not afraid to lose an election.
  We need more people like that, Ron. We need people who don't want to 
stay here a lifetime and turn this, the United States Congress, into a 
family business.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. It is interesting with the seniority discussion. I was 
in the Navy. In the military, your time in service matters for pay 
purposes and other, but along the line you have to actually promote. 
You have to earn a promotion.
  So there will be some people who are commanders, O-5s, who have been 
in for--I don't know--I guess you could probably get that after 12 or 
13 years. And then there are some people who are lieutenant commanders, 
O-4, who have been in 20 years.
  Well, if you have been in 20, you have more seniority in the sense 
that you have been there longer, but the person who achieved the higher 
rank through merit is superior to you in the military chain of command. 
I think the problem with the way the congressional system operates is 
it is purely based on years staying here.

  Some of the best Members who have ever served here have served for 
30, 35 years. So this is not uniform. But I think, if you compared the 
good that those Members have done with the negatives of all the other 
folks who have just made this their fiefdom, I think the negatives 
outweigh the positives.
  I think that Congressman Blum is right. Ultimately, the American 
people need to force this issue. Part of it is calling the offices. I 
review the phone calls every day, too.
  I think one of the most effective things is in a public forum to just 
pointblank ask a Member of Congress if they will vote for Salmon's bill 
or Ron DeSantis' term limit bill and put them on the Record.
  The more people that are on the Record as for it, it makes it easier 
for us to then take the case to the leadership and say that we need to 
do this.
  I think it would be a breath of fresh air. I think people are so 
frustrated and so sick of the same old games being played in Washington 
that, if we started coming out with some of these reforms, leading with 
term limits, I think people would be reading the newspaper and shaking 
their heads and saying: Really? These guys are finally getting it.
  Really, this is something that, if you take the long view when you 
are doing the right thing like that, then voters will have more 
confidence in your views on other things.
  So maybe you are interested in tax reform. Maybe you are interested 
in welfare reform. Guess what. You are doing term limits. You are doing 
those things. I bet you a lot of voters would be less cynical about 
what you are trying to do on a whole range of issues.
  So I think it would be a win-win both in terms of structural reform, 
but also potential policy reforms down the line.
  Let me ask my friend from Iowa: Is there anything else you want to 
add to the discussion? I really appreciate your time. I think it has 
been worthwhile. I think we need to keep fighting the good fight.
  Mr. BLUM. I agree with you. We will always storm the hill, my good 
friend, and plant that flag, regardless of how many times we need to do 
it.
  But I would just like to mention some of the bills I have been 
involved with:
  Eliminating first-class airline travel for congressional Members paid 
for by taxpayers. Most of the people in my district have never flown in 
first class. There is no reason I should be flying first class on 
taxpayer dollars.
  Eliminating the $1,200-a-month luxury car leases that we can lease 
back in our districts. That is more than most house payments in 
northeast Iowa. It would eliminate that.
  We need to eliminate the congressional pension program. We need to 
eliminate the ability to become a lobbyist after you have served in 
this body.
  We need to tie our pay to the pay of the average American. The 
average American has not had a pay raise in over 20 years. The average 
American's pay has gone backwards.
  This body's pay should go backwards just like the average American's. 
The words used in polls is that we are out of touch. I wonder if this 
body is not out of touch, if we are not tone deaf. We need to be tied 
to the average American.
  I recently introduced a bill that, if we didn't balance the budget, 
then we would get a pay cut; if it is not balanced next year, we get a 
deeper pay cut; and if we keep not balancing it, we are going to end up 
making no money. Maybe this way it will get through everyone's head 
that this is a serious issue and we need to balance the budget.
  I agree with you, Ron, that any of these reforms voted on would go so 
far, I think, to the American people to say:

       Finally, finally, Washington, D.C. is listening to us. They 
     finally get it.

  The frustration is palpable in my district. It probably is in yours. 
People are really upset. They say that they don't listen, the laws 
don't apply to us like they do the rest of Americans.

[[Page H1549]]

  I couldn't agree more. As a citizen, I am every bit as frustrated as 
well. So you can always count on me to storm the hill with you, my 
friend.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. I appreciate it. In your bill, when you said, hey, 
balance the budget or else face a pay cut, I signed up on that 
immediately. I think that is a great idea.
  We need to have personal skin in the game because what happens is, 
when you are here in Washington, particularly dealing with spending and 
debt, it is a lot easier politically for most Members to just put it 
off on the next generation.
  These are people that can't vote you out of office. They are not 
going to call your office and complain about it. So it is usually the 
path of least resistance to do that.
  So there is not a lot of immediate skin in the game short of us 
eventually having a debt crisis. Obviously, we don't want it to come to 
that. We want to make responsible decisions now.
  So I applaud you for that. I thought that was a very thoughtful 
reform. I am happy to be signed up with you. Term limits, as part of a 
larger government reform package, I think would be a home run. I look 
forward to working with you on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________