[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 148 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7908-H7914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, George Mason, the patriot, said:

[[Page H7909]]

``Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his 
constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the 
people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their 
burdens.''
  Translation: The Founding Fathers wanted us to come here and do the 
people's business and then go home, back to the ``farm,'' and live 
under the rules we passed. They want us to come up here and represent 
the people, their interests, and no other; the public's interests, no 
other; America's interests, no other.
  They wanted us to come here with a singular purpose and that is to do 
what is right and good for the American people and to have the courage 
to step up to the plate, because every generation is called to do so, 
and to make the sacrifices and to make the tough calls and take on the 
tough issues of the day and solve them, even if that causes you to have 
a shorter political career than you anticipated. That is the theme of 
this Special Order, Mr. Speaker. It is term limits.
  We the Members who gather today to talk about it might be taken off 
some of the Christmas card lists of some of our friends and colleagues. 
But this does not in any way disparage Members who served here for many 
years and many terms. I think you have folks here--and I think in fact 
I can name some--who have done a good job, who have served well. But I 
don't think it is healthy.
  Just because you can do it doesn't mean we shouldn't create an 
environment and have the right incentives for the right behavior. I 
think there are just too many forces that pull us as Members in 
directions other than doing what is best and right for this country and 
for the people we came here to represent.
  So I think there is an ideal way. And I think we are off the mark 
from that ideal, from the spirit and the intent of what George Mason 
said in that quote, and what our Founding Fathers believed from the 
very outset.
  Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues who will speak here in a moment, we 
didn't run just to rearrange the furniture in the people's House. We 
ran to make a real difference, to advance real reform, so that this 
country and its leaders could govern and solve problems and move this 
Nation forward.
  So my greatest calling, I believe, isn't just to advance reforms to 
education or to healthcare or to the Tax Code. I think this is a season 
for reforming this institution, first and foremost. I think that we are 
long overdue, but I think the time is right for structural, 
fundamental, systemic reforms to the United States Congress.
  As a new Member and as a new generation of Members, I cannot tell you 
how excited I am to stand with my colleagues today, Republican and 
Democratic, and talk about one of those structural reforms that I think 
will strike at the heart of some of the problems with Washington and 
the culture of Washington.
  Woe to me and any Member who comes up here just to change the course, 
the policy course of this country, and not do anything to affect the 
broken culture of this body. I think it is incumbent upon us to do that 
and to change this broken culture.
  I think if we take anything away from this last Presidential election 
on either side of the aisle and whatever party you claim, we can all 
agree that the American people are fed up with the status quo. They 
don't want business as usual. I think there is a crisis in confidence 
in this institution.
  When I ran, I ran railing against the culture of Washington and the 
fundamental changes and the brokenness of this institution. Now I am a 
Member. Now it is time to act on the things that I so boldly proclaimed 
that we needed to do.
  I think that for this reason Republican and Democrats alike have come 
together to support a constitutional amendment that would limit the 
number of terms an individual may serve in the United States Congress.
  There are different ways to organize it, structure it, but I think 
the intent and the heart of all these reform initiatives around term 
limit are getting after, I think, the same desired outcome. We believe 
that, above and beyond Tax Code reform, bettering the healthcare 
system, limiting regulatory burden, and so on and so forth, we have got 
to change this institution.
  We have a great chance. I do think the timing is right. Our Founders 
never intended these public servants to be professional career 
politicians. They didn't want a permanent political class to rule the 
land from Washington. Instead, they envisioned this sort of citizen-
legislator way of leading and serving, and then living back among our 
brothers and sisters.
  People say this is tilting at windmills and this is an unproductive 
quest. But all you have to do is look at George Washington and the 
example he set by custom, by tradition. When asked to serve more than 
two terms as President, he said: We got rid of a King George. We don't 
need a King George. I wanted to serve my people as President. It is 
time for me to go back to the farm.
  For 100 years, that custom was honored. And then, FDR ran for a third 
and fourth term. The people reacted, and we had the 22nd Amendment to 
the Constitution and we have term limits on our Presidents.
  I think that if it can happen for Presidents, where the people say, 
We don't want kings, I believe--and especially today, in these times--
that the people are speaking, if we will just listen and respond. They 
don't want career politicians either. Neither are healthy for this 
great country.

  There was a recent survey, as recent as February of this year, where 
over 80 percent of the American people--Democratic, Republican, 
Independent--say that this initiative of term limits being effectuated 
in an amendment to the Constitution would make this institution run 
better and would change the culture for the better. They support it. I 
am old-fashioned enough to believe if 80 percent of the people want 
something, they ought to get their chance to at least debate it and 
vote on it. I am grateful for this time that we have to talk about it.
  I am looking at my colleagues here in the Chamber and I see Ro 
Khanna, my friend from California. We have very different backgrounds. 
We come from different places and different ideological places. We have 
different thoughts about policy reforms on various issues.
  But when we met during orientation as two new Members--a former 
member of the George W. Bush administration and a former member of the 
Obama administration--you couldn't have two more different people. But 
we had a great conversation, we struck up a friendship, and our 
families love each other, care about each other, and I want him to be 
successful, I want his family to be successful. We came together on one 
thing in particular and it was this notion of term limits.
  We introduced what I think is still the only bipartisan, Democratic 
and Republican-introduced legislation to limit Members of Congress' 
terms. I am grateful for his friendship and I am glad he is here.
  I think I am going to stop talking, Mr. Speaker, and ask my 
colleagues to share their thoughts. I am going to start with a dear 
friend, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, District Eight.
  Brian is the heart and soul of this initiative. We went to see the 
President of the United States on this, Republicans and Democrats, and 
he said: This is the most energized group I have met with. It is 
because we believe that we can actually make real change with real 
reforms like term limits.
  Brian has been the heart and soul of this. He, like myself, is very 
passionate about this. He has dedicated a lot of his time and effort 
introducing congressional reform and anticorruption legislation to fix 
Washington's broken system. These measures include his own term limit 
legislation, a constitutional amendment that would prevent Members of 
Congress from being paid unless a budget is passed, and a balanced 
budget amendment that would force Congress to stop kicking the can down 
the road and address our national debt now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am doing something a little bit 
unconventional here. I am actually speaking from the left side of the 
aisle in a sign of solidarity with our good friend and colleague, Ro 
Khanna, on an issue that, as Jodey Arrington pointed out,

[[Page H7910]]

doesn't just unite Americans, it unites 80 percent of Americans. Eighty 
percent. How many issues are out there that enjoy the support of 80 
percent of the American people?
  A lot of our colleagues here, when you are dealing with the rigors of 
this job, say one thing, give you one piece of advice: Never forget why 
you ran. Just remember that theme that caused you to make that 
difficult decision.
  I think that the reason we all ran was this: term limits to fix a 
broken system. The genesis of that desire, the genesis of that belief 
may vary amongst many of us. I can tell you where it came from with me, 
Mr. Speaker, and that was my time running the political corruption unit 
at FBI headquarters right down this road here, where you are 
responsible for a lot of cases.
  Like many jobs, when you go home at night, sometimes you take a step 
back and you think: Well, if I were ever given the opportunity to have 
a policymaking role to change this brokenness, what would I do?
  At the top of that list, Mr. Speaker, was legislative term limits.
  You heard my friend and colleague, Jodey Arrington, talk about George 
Washington, my favorite President ever, for this very reason: he set 
this tradition in motion. He said he only wanted to serve one term, go 
back to his farm in Mount Vernon, live under the laws he helped pass, 
make way for a new generation of leadership. That is the most organic 
way to serve a democracy. It is the healthiest form of democracy.
  They talked him into a second term. He said: No more. It was a 
tradition that every single President honored, up until FDR served four 
terms, at which point Congress passed the 22nd Amendment to the 
Constitution. But true to form, they applied it to the executive. They 
did not apply it to themselves.

                              {time}  1745

  We need a constitutional amendment for term limits in this country.
  Is there anybody in this Chamber who does not agree with this very 
basic principle, this very basic premise, that more organic change in 
this organization, in this body, is a good thing?
  Mr. Speaker, in the FBI, we had term limits in the Bureau. If you 
were a supervisor, you had to serve up to 7 years--no more, not a day 
longer than 7 years.
  Do you lose some good people? Of course you do.
  Overall, did it benefit the institution? You bet you it did. You bet 
you it did. It brought people in from different places, different 
perspectives, different educational backgrounds. They had an 
opportunity to serve and lend their area of expertise.
  That is a good thing for this institution. It is a good thing for our 
country. It is not just from the corruption standpoint; it is from the 
getting along standpoint.
  I can tell you how proud I am of this freshman class--so proud. I am 
particularly proud of Ro Khanna, mostly because he is from Bucks 
County--the most special place in America, I might add--and now 
representing Silicon Valley.
  Here you have an issue. Ro and I come from different parties. We 
checked different boxes on our voter registration form when we were 18 
years old. We grew up in the same community; we care about the same 
things; and we have an issue here that unites us.
  Jodey Arrington, a very wise man, identified this--and I couldn't 
agree more--as a root issue. So much of what we deal with in this 
House, so much of what we deal with in this country are symptoms. It is 
symptomatic of what the root issues are. The root issues get to the 
functionality of this body.
  The Problem Solvers Caucus introduced a Break the Gridlock package 
essential to changing the way things operate here. The government 
reform, anticorruption legislation that several Members have 
introduced, myself included, on term limits, on dealing with things 
like no budget, no pay, these are important things that will 
fundamentally change the way this body works. And when we do that, we 
will win back the trust and support of the American people, too many of 
whom have lost faith in this institution--and for good reason.
  We can make those changes. This is Exhibit A of what we need to do to 
fix a broken system, to restore that trust. Mr. Speaker, it is an 80 
percent issue.
  How dare we not address, on the floor of this House, an issue that 
addresses the root cause of our problems that is supported by 80 
percent of the American people. We have to get this done.
  I want to thank my colleague, Jodey. This is an issue that fires both 
of us up. We talk about it every single day we are on the floor of the 
House of Representatives: my friend  Mike Gallagher from Wisconsin, who 
did the first Special Order on term limits shortly after we got sworn 
in, and my friend Ro Khanna, who has shown incredible courage. This is 
a man who could serve here for a long, long time, but he is making a 
courageous decision to stand for what is right, what is good for this 
institution, what is good for this country. God bless Mr. Khanna for 
doing that.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I think anybody who heard the remarks 
from my friend Brian Fitzpatrick is, without a doubt, inspired by the 
new blood and the new fire in the belly of this new membership of this 
institution that, again, wants to make real change.
  I love what he said to me--and he may be mad when I quote him, but he 
said: If we could get a vote, if we could just get a vote. And if we 
got a vote, I believe it would pass because I think the American people 
would put too much pressure on our colleagues, which is a good thing. 
That is how it works. And we would pass this, and we would be able to 
have this new dynamic which would get at that root cause and change the 
behavior of this institution and the culture.
  He said: If I could get that, I would be willing to leave tomorrow, 
if that is what it took. If I knew I could leave knowing that that 
would happen, I would leave tomorrow.
  Thank God for people like Brian Fitzpatrick. I am so proud to serve 
with the gentleman, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. He 
really is the heart of this movement in our class. And I know that it 
extends beyond our class, but I think there is a sense of urgency to do 
something real in this class.
  This isn't the silver bullet. This isn't the panacea. There is a list 
of things that are root causes and fundamental structural reforms, but 
I think this one should be the easiest to pass this House. And the 
people want it, as the gentleman said.
  Mr. Speaker, now I am going to introduce another member of this new 
class of Representatives, from the great State of Wisconsin, another 
dear friend,  Mike Gallagher.
  During his first 100 days in office, Mike introduced a number of 
bills to drain the swamp, including his own term limit legislation, a 
5-year lobbying ban for retiring Members, reforms to the congressional 
pension, and the Do Your Job Act, which would prevent Congress from 
leaving for recess until it passed all its appropriations bills.
  This is a guy who wants to make a real difference, and he is willing 
to stick his neck out and do it. Probably, none of these are very 
popular here, but I guarantee you they would be powerful in 
implementation and the change--the good change--that they would make.
  Since taking office last year, he has made decreasing the size and 
influence of the Federal Government, restoring power back to the 
people, a top priority; and he is an original cosponsor of Ro Khanna 
and my term limit legislation and led the first Special Order to 
discuss term limits in this Chamber. I thank Mr. Gallagher for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues 
here: Mr. Arrington from Texas, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Khanna.

  I want to say, since we started on this journey a year and a half 
ago, I have been blown away by the response that I have gotten from 
constituents in my district.
  Ro Khanna and I wrote an op-ed together very early on in Congress 
where we laid out three priorities for draining the swamp, one of which 
was term limits; and to this day, I still have people coming up to me 
on the street saying: I love that. I just love the fact that you

[[Page H7911]]

were willing to write an op-ed with a Democrat.
  I just think it gets to what my colleagues have laid out, which is 
that issues like this cross party lines. They have the overwhelming 
support of 80 percent of the American people.
  We have to ask ourselves the serious question as to whether we are 
willing to disregard the wisdom, the common sense of 80 percent of the 
American people. I think we do so at our own peril.
  I recognize that there are principled and serious objections to the 
idea of term limits, and I would like to address what I think are the 
three most salient, albeit briefly.
  The one thing I hear a lot from opponents of term limits is that, 
well, we already have term limits built into the system. We have term 
limits every 2 years in the House and every 6 years in the Senate in 
the form of elections.
  I understand the logic there, but anyone who is taking a serious look 
at how elections work in this country cannot conclude that there is an 
honest chance for newcomers to overcome the serious hurdles that we 
have placed to them running for office and to overcome the serious 
advantages that we have given incumbents.
  I think my friend, Mr. Khanna, is the one pointing out that, in many 
cases, the turnover rates among Members of Congress is actually lower 
than in certain European monarchies, which goes to the fact that 
incumbency comes with enormous advantage.
  Think of how many good people, good citizens who love this country 
aren't even willing to run because they see it as such an 
insurmountable task. That shows how far we have gotten away from the 
model of the citizen legislator.
  I won't even get into the issue of PAC money that is available to 
incumbents, as well as the way in which incumbents are able to use 
their official budget to contact voters in a way that people trying to 
challenge incumbents are not. So I don't think that argument stands up 
to serious scrutiny.
  The second thing I have heard, which I take seriously, is that term 
limits have been tried at the State level, and there have been mixed 
results. In some cases, there are arguments that they have actually had 
a negative effect. I would say that, most basically, that experiment 
has not been run enough times to be significant in a meaningful, 
statistical sense.
  Contrarily, we have actually run this experiment here over and over 
again, and we have seen the results of careerism and the use of 
congressional office as a stepping stone and as a means to enrichment.
  But I would also say you have to make a fundamental distinction 
between service at the Federal level and service at the State and local 
level. And it is my belief that the Founders intended service at the 
Federal level to be, as my colleague Jodey Arrington more eloquently 
pointed out, a season of service.
  You want expertise and authority concentrated at the lowest possible 
level that is responsible, where it can be more responsive to the needs 
of the people and, also, more accountable. So I bring that up to say 
you have to make a distinction between service at the State level and 
service at the Federal level.
  The final thing I hear, and I think it is actually the most serious 
objection, is that, if you term-limit Members of Congress, you will 
only empower the staff; you will further empower a staff that, by the 
way, is already overempowered and already running this place because 
Members do not take an interest in the serious work of legislation and, 
instead, are only interested in perpetuating the Kabuki theater that 
dominates what we do in this place.
  I am a former staffer. I worked in the Senate. I was paid to advise 
Members of the Senate on how they should make decisions. I can tell you 
that staff power is inversely proportional to Member interest. In other 
words, if Members are not interested in doing the hard work of showing 
up to their committee hearings, legislating, then staff is going to run 
the place.
  If you create a dynamic where Members feel they have a limited period 
of time to make an impact via term limits, then it is my firm belief 
that you will actually have the opposite effect, that you will have 
Members taking ownership of the legislative process rather than 
outsourcing it to not only unelected congressional staff, but unelected 
members of the executive branch and the judicial branch whom the 
American people did not hire to make laws.
  They hired us to make laws, but we are failing in that fundamental 
duty. We have placed most of the Federal Government on autopilot, and 
we are more than happy to outsource consequential decisions that we 
should be making constitutionally to Article II and Article III.
  The final thing I will say, though: Put aside all the philosophical 
arguments for or against term limits. Given what my colleagues have 
laid out, given the historically low levels of approval that this body 
faces right now, the shared sense among all of us that Congress, as an 
institution, is fundamentally broken, that it is in need of some 
serious reform, we need to do something different.
  I cannot promise you that term limits will solve all of our problems, 
but I believe firmly that, if nothing else--if nothing else--it will 
send a signal to the American people that we are interested in changing 
the status quo and the fundamental dynamic here in Washington, D.C., 
because the American people have made their opinion clear over and over 
again, and that is that they are not satisfied with the status quo.
  To continue business as usual, to continue making the same mistakes 
over and over again, would satisfy the literal definition of insanity; 
and I would hope that we could avoid that, at the very least. What my 
colleague Mr. Fitzpatrick said and my colleague Jodey Arrington echoed, 
that we should demand a vote, is absolutely right.
  We are going to have a Speaker's race no matter who wins the 
election. This should be a key part of that debate. Getting a vote on 
the House floor is something that we should demand, and this is an idea 
whose time has finally come.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, that is the courage of a captain in the 
Marine Corps. I am grateful for his service to this country in the 
armed services. I am blessed to call him my friend. And again, the fire 
in the belly to come up here and make lasting reforms for our children 
and grandchildren--and game-changing reforms.
  So I am grateful to Mr. Gallagher, and I thank the gentleman for 
being a leader on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now going to introduce a dear friend whom I 
mentioned earlier, Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California.
  I want to just also note before Representative Gallagher may have to 
leave, but he is speaking from the traditionally Democratic podium. I 
don't know. There is not a law. I don't think there is even a House 
rule that says you have to speak on the right side or the left side. 
But he speaks over there, and our Republican colleague Brian 
Fitzpatrick also stood over there, not just in solidarity on this 
issue, but with the spirit of friendship and the notion of restoring 
civility in this body.
  When I look at you guys across the aisle and I see a Republican and 
Democrat on the Democratic side, traditionally, I am reminded of our 
class signing the civility agreement and sitting in the middle of this 
Chamber as a message to others and as an affirmation to each other that 
part of the culture change that we are talking about--in this respect, 
it is term limits, but it is more than that. It is some of the things 
that Mr. Gallagher is pushing through legislation, but it is also the 
softer issues, the intangible cultural issues like civility.
  With that, I want to say that I thank Mr. Khanna for his leadership. 
His folks are well represented by him. He knows what he believes. He 
fights hard for his beliefs and his constituents, but he remains 
independent to those beliefs and to those interests. I am proud to call 
Ro Khanna my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Arrington for his 
friendship. One of the things I get asked all the time as a freshman 
is: What is it like in Congress? Do you actually know people on the 
other side?

[[Page H7912]]

  I always say that, actually, one of my closest friends in Congress is 
Jodey Arrington. I really value the friendship we have formed, that our 
families have formed, much at his initiative. I mean, he struck up a 
conversation with my wife, and he has been so gracious as we have had 
our own family.
  It is one of the things I have enjoyed most about our class, to have 
relationships that transcend the rancor and the partisanship. You get 
to know people and know that everyone, in their own way, cares about 
the country, and there are things that we can do in common.
  I so admire Mr. Arrington's leadership from day one on term limits 
and trying to find common ground on making sure that this is an issue 
that isn't partisan, that you can be a Democrat, a Libertarian, a 
Republican, and still have a belief in what Thomas Jefferson said, that 
we should live under the laws that we make.
  I still have a belief that these jobs weren't supposed to be a 
career. They were supposed to be ones that were inspired out of 
answering the Nation's call to service and then returning home to your 
community.
  I also want to recognize my friend  Mike Gallagher, recognize, of 
course, his extraordinary service to our Nation as a marine, but also 
his desire to cross the aisle. I was honored to host him in Stanford, 
where he had great ideas on cybersecurity. I know Mr. Gallagher has 
been championing political reform, term limits, and is sincere about 
wanting to see progress.
  Brian Fitzpatrick left, but I have a soft spot for Brian because we 
are both Bucks County kids. We grew up in Bucks County, and Brian is 
relentless, as Jodey Arrington has pointed out. We had that meeting 
with the President, and Brian would chime in and challenge the 
President whenever he wanted to push further for term limits, in a 
respectful way, but wanting to really advocate for this issue as the 
most important issue.
  So I am really honored to work with Representative Arrington, 
Representative Fitzpatrick, and Representative Gallagher on this. They 
have made most of the points. I will just add a few more.
  Representative Gallagher referenced the Economist article, which I 
was shocked to see, where they had the turnover rate of European 
monarchies. They showed that the turnover rate of the United States 
Congress was less than European monarchies. I thought that is why we 
fought a revolution, that we didn't believe in dynastic rule. We didn't 
believe that people should just be in power for decade after decade.
  Yet, the incumbent reelection rate remains at 95 or 98 percent. And 
you wonder, you say, how is it possible that our approval ratings are 
at 10 percent as a body, and yet 95 or 98 percent are getting 
reelected?
  Sometimes, when I talk to friends, I say, it is as if there is a 
company that is going bankrupt and all the presidents and vice 
presidents are fighting over who gets to be CEO.
  Sometimes I think that is what the American people think. We are here 
fighting about who gets control, who gets to chair a committee, and the 
institution isn't working.
  They are saying: Why don't the men and women fix the institution 
first? That is what term limits will do. I have seen it in my own 
class. I have seen how people of both sides of the aisle--and let's not 
be Pollyannaish about it. We probably vote differently on 95 percent of 
the issues. But I have seen that people in this class have come here 
with a sense of wanting to restore our democracy, of trying to fix 
something and make it functional, because we all heard that out on the 
campaign trail.
  I get the loudest applause in one of the most liberal districts when 
I talk about working on legislation with a Republican like we did on 
the VALOR Act or writing an op-ed together and reaching across the 
aisle. That is what people are hungry for.
  I believe that, if you have term limits and if you take the careerism 
out of it and if people know they are going to have about a decade to 
have an impact, you are going to encourage more efforts to find that 
common ground, more efforts to be willing to compromise when it makes 
sense for the Nation to look for some overlap in issues.
  So I am committed to this. I really respect Jodey, again, in his 
leadership in pursuing this. It is not easy to make change, and a lot 
of times, after we do one of these things, it is easy to say: Okay. It 
is out in the press. We have had a meeting. We made the point.
  But Mr. Arrington has been so persistent about getting us back 
together, continuing to fight for this, and I echo the call that we 
should have a vote on the House floor, whoever the Speaker is, to make 
sure that the American people have their voices heard, and we can get a 
vote on term limits.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Khanna. I think we 
would do a lot for the confidence of the American people if we could 
get a vote on it. I think they would believe that this body is actually 
responding to them, instead of just talking to each other in this 
bubble up here in Washington.
  Again, there are good people, but there is a bad dynamic. You put 
good people in a bad dynamic and a history that creates a bad culture 
and you get bad outcomes.
  So this isn't to disparage anybody on either side. It is to align the 
incentives so that we can be most responsive and do what was expected 
when the folks hired us to do this job, and that is to focus on their 
interests, the interests of our country, do the right thing, and put 
America first.
  I am reminded from the comments of Mr. Khanna that, when we had the 
meeting with the President--and I want to say that Mr. Mark Meadows, 
the Representative from North Carolina, helped us a great deal to get 
that audience with the President. I think everybody here is grateful 
for his efforts to do that. We knew that, from the outset--Mr. Khanna 
and I talked about this--that if we were going to have a path to 
success and not just make this part of the sort of rhetoric or some 
political box-checking exercise, but if we were going to really try to 
get this across the goal line with many others who have other pieces of 
legislation similar to our term limits legislation: A, it needed to be 
bipartisan; and, B, we needed buy-in from the drainer of the swamp in 
chief.

  If there is anything that the man in the Oval Office, Donald J. 
Trump, represents, it is shaking up this culture. Whether you like the 
way he is shaking it up or not, that was the message, that they wanted 
change. They didn't want business as usual.
  This is a proud moment for me because of my colleagues' response to 
the President when he said: Do you really think we are going to get a 
vote on this? Do you really think that you are actually going to get a 
vote whereby your fellow Members, who have been there longer than you 
all, would actually term limit themselves?
  That is when my new friends and colleagues, Republican and Democrat, 
said: Mr. President, grandfather them in. Term limit us. Start with our 
class and every class that follows. Don't worry about the ones who are 
there. They may want a term limit, they may not. But we are not going 
to get into that. We don't want to slow this down. We want to be 
successful.
  I really appreciate that response. I believe in it wholeheartedly. I 
am all in, and I am a true believer in what we are doing. So I thank 
Mr. Khanna.
  Now, Mr.  Tom Marino, the United States Representative from the great 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the 10th District, he has been working on 
this before probably my freshmen colleagues had thought to even run for 
this in their respective offices. He introduced term limit legislation 
to help ``return our government'' to one that truly is for the people 
and by the people.
  He believes, like I do, and the gentleman you heard speak earlier, 
that it is well past time to get Washington back to work for the 
American people.
  So may God bless my friend  Tom Marino, as I yield to him to speak 
about this term limit effort.
  Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 22 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino.)
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Arrington for providing 
this opportunity to talk about term limits, and I thank my colleagues 
who were here to comment on it.

[[Page H7913]]

  First of all, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute and thank 
our veterans, our law enforcement, our emergency service people, and 
their families for how they protect us. If it weren't for them, we 
would not be able to be in this Chamber doing what we are doing 
tonight.
  Now, I am probably, in years, age, the oldest Member here who is 
talking about term limits. I am in my eighth year, so it is my fourth 
term. When I first ran for Congress in 2010, I advocated for term 
limits, and I have introduced legislation in the past three election 
cycles for term limits.
  President Trump ran on draining the swamp, and I believe that term 
limits are the exact way to ensure that we drain the swamp and 
effectively serve the American people. I can remember when I was on the 
campaign trail many, many months with the President, and one of the 
things he asked me, he said: What would you do to change Congress?
  I said: Term limits.
  He said to me: You would be putting yourself out of a job.
  I said: It wasn't designed to be a lifetime career.
  When he went out and spoke to the people, he raised that issue of 
term limits.
  Now, I am not criticizing my colleagues who have been here longer 
than 12 years, because my term limit legislation is 12 years. But times 
have changed, and we have to change with the times to improve the 
quality of life for people.
  As I said, my legislation would limit any Senator or any House Member 
to 12 years in office. Now, let me explain something on this concept. 
First of all, we use the word ``Congress''; we use the word ``House 
Member''; we use the word ``Senator.'' Most of my colleagues know this, 
and most of the people know it, but Congress represents the House and 
the Senate.
  The Members of the Senate are Members of Congress. The Members of the 
House are Members of Congress. For some reason, the Senate goes by 
``Senate,'' and we go by ``Congress'' or ``House Members.''
  But I don't mean 12 years serving in the House and then 12 years in 
the Senate or vice versa. I mean 12 years and you are out. That would 
be six terms for Congressmen and two terms for a Senator, or vice 
versa, however they wanted to do it.
  I was once told by a reporter who asked a Member, and I won't mention 
that Member's name in Congress, and you don't know if it is in the 
House or in the Senate: What do you think of Marino's term limit 
legislation of 12 years?
  The reporter told me that the elected official responded by saying: 
Well, we are only beginning to learn what is going on here and how it 
works in 12 years.
  So my term limit legislation would hinder Congress' ability to get 
things done. How's that been going? I completely disagree.
  Opponents say we will not have the experience. Wrong, and that is a 
lame excuse.
  They say that staff members will be making the decisions. Well, if 
there is a Member in the House or the Senate who is letting their staff 
members make the decisions, that elected official shouldn't be here.
  Part of my background is that I worked in a factory until I was 30, 
started sweeping floors and worked my way up. I started college 2 weeks 
after my 30th birthday and then went on to law school. Having a 
background in the private sector, I can tell you that if a person in 
the private sector or who worked for someone in business were to argue 
that I need 12 years to start being successful or doing my job 
correctly, they would be fired in the first week.

                              {time}  1815

  The President is limited to two terms, 8 years. Many governors are 
limited to two terms. State House and Senate elected officials in some 
States are limited in their terms.
  Why not Congress? It is not a lifetime career.
  I am only advocating for term limits at the Federal level, not at the 
State level. It is completely ridiculous for a lawmaker to state that 
they are unable to serve their constituents unless they are here for 
longer than 12 years. Knowing that one is limited to 12 years, or a 
variation of that, then the elected official knows what they have to do 
to get the job done, what they promised.
  We need to change the culture here in Congress, and term limits is 
the only way to accomplish this.
  According to the most recent clear politics polling average, 18.4 
percent of the American public approves of the job that Congress is 
doing. What does that tell us?
  This certainly seems like a good argument for why we need turnover in 
Congress and new ideas consistently coming through the doors.
  CEOs, chief executive officers, presidents of companies, chairmen and 
women of corporations leave or are asked to leave their position after 
8 to 10 years, on average. And why is that? That is because the company 
wants fresh ideas. That is because that person who is in that position 
feels that they have accomplished all that they can and they move on to 
their next goal.
  Serving in Congress was originally never viewed as a career or a 
lifetime appointment. We need new ideas from new Members, women and 
men, young and not so young.
  There is a great deal of talent here in Congress and, with term 
limits, newer Members will have the ability to chair committees, 
instead of waiting for 15 or 20 years to be a chairman or a chairwoman.
  We have, in the House, a person can serve 6 years on one committee as 
the chair, and then move to another committee for 6 years. That is 12 
years. I understand that that is the Republican side. I understand, and 
someone correct me if I am wrong, on the other side of the aisle it is 
lifetime in situations.
  That doesn't give the talent, the new talent, the ability to move up 
and have a say of how things are run. It gives the new talent ability 
to get into leadership without having to be here 20 years.
  The framers of the Constitution were not full-time legislators. They 
were businessmen, they were entrepreneurs, they were farmers, they were 
inventors, et cetera. They spent very little time actually in 
Philadelphia and in New York. They went back home with their 
constituents, and back home to their jobs.
  See, there was a difference there between representing the people, 
putting together a Constitution, and then going back to your job.
  There was also never supposed to be a permanent class that would rule 
over the citizens and without term limits that is what we have.
  In 2016, 97 percent of all House Members who were seeking reelection 
won their races. We also must change, in Congress, the rules. They are 
outdated; they are old; they are inefficient, in both Chambers, in the 
House and in the Senate. But to do this, we need term limits.
  As I said, I have brought up term limits the last three elections. I 
can't even get a hearing on it.
  It is not healthy for our republic or for our constituents who 
deserve better.
  I ask my constituents every time I am out in my district, and when I 
am speaking around the State, and in other States: Do you support my 
term limit of 12 years? And overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, it is a 
resounding yes. I have had people say to me, I never used to support 
term limits, but now I do.
  I want to, again, thank Congressman Arrington and the other Members 
that were here for holding this Special Order Hour to discuss this very 
important issue. I would encourage all of my colleagues to join us in 
supporting term limits to help drain the swamp and maintain a healthy 
legislative branch, or at least get it to a debate. This is a game-
changer, term limits, and will improve the quality of life for 
Americans.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and his passion and his focus on the 
things that will really move the needle and really change the culture 
and really make a difference for his kids and grandkids. And I am 
thankful that he came and expressed his sentiments and the history 
behind his leadership and experience long before I showed up; and he 
has plowed some good ground for the new Members who spoke today, and we 
greatly appreciate that.

[[Page H7914]]

  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, I think we can be successful, I 
really do, and here is why. I think we have the precedents of the 22nd 
Amendment, which was done in the shadow that was cast by one of our 
greatest leaders, George Washington, and the custom and tradition of 
the 2 terms for President.
  But the people, with angst and vehement opposition to more than two 
terms as President, spoke, and there was enough critical mass where we 
had the 22nd Amendment. We passed a constitutional amendment. It has 
already happened and it can happen again. I believe that we are 
embarking on such a time and a season in the life of this country.
  And the public frustration, we have talked about the approval rating, 
popular reform. We talked about the polls. Over 80 percent of the 
American people want this. And then we talked about the man in the Oval 
Office who ran on draining the swamp. And this is a definitive 
measurable way to do that. It is not the only way; it is not the 
panacea for all of the ills culturally in this institution, but it 
would certainly be a big start.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to my colleagues for the support and 
for their eloquent and passionate remarks to advance this.
  And I want to say a special thanks to the President for tweeting out 
on this after our meeting, for endorsing our efforts, and I encourage 
him. There are two things we need. We need the President to continue to 
make this a priority, and we need him to continue to talk about it; and 
we need the next leadership of this body, whatever that looks like and 
however that sorts out, we need the leadership to bring this to a vote.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx). It is not on the issue of term limits. It is on another very 
important issue.


                         Recognizing Eli Herman

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, Mr. 
Arrington, for leading this Special Order and yielding me some time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of a young American 
entrepreneur, Eli Herman, who lives with his parents, Teresa and 
Ritchie Herman, on their farm in Alexander County.
  I met Eli and his parents at the Alexander County Draft Horse Pulling 
Contest recently, where he opened the contest by riding into the arena 
with his ponies and the American flag.
  It was clear from the beginning of our meeting that Eli is not a 
typical 11-year old boy. This young man truly embodies the American 
entrepreneurial spirit and exudes patriotism.
  At his young age, Eli has big dreams and the self-motivation he needs 
to accomplish them. Starting at a very young age, Eli raised his own 
calves and was able to earn some money from that endeavor. He made the 
decision to use that money to purchase ponies and a wagon.
  Now Eli owns 11 ponies, which he shows. He participates in events to 
promote American values, and will be participating in the North 
Carolina State Fair in October, where I know he will be a big hit.
  Eli's long-term dream is, one day, to follow in the footsteps of his 
hero, Randy Derrer, the driver of the Wells Fargo stagecoach. He has my 
best wishes to achieve that dream, and it is my good fortune to have 
met him and his parents and know that they are among the many wonderful 
people in the Fifth District of North Carolina that it is my privilege 
to represent.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina. And I just say, in conclusion, before I yield the balance of 
my time back, Mr. Speaker, that, and I was remiss to not mention that 
this would be the appropriate way to conclude.
  I want to thank the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, for allowing my 
colleagues and I to speak on this issue on the floor of the House, of 
the people's House, and being open to allow Members to bring their 
ideas and the things that they ran on, the things that they are 
passionate about, that they believe will make the biggest difference 
for the future of this country.
  To me, that is a big part of leadership, being big enough to allow 
people to take the microphone and speak on these issues, whether he 
believes in it, supports it or not, I don't know. But I know that he is 
a good leader for allowing us to speak about it, and I am grateful for 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________