John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just observe that we are marching our own institution into oblivion. I am trying to search for the reasons why. What would lead us to come to such a sorry conclusion that we need to regulate by Constitution our own terms? Oh, not for us exactly, after it succeeds through the ratification process. My hat goes off to those three Members that I have heard that said they are going to impose constitutional limitations on themselves that they would put into the Constitution. Those are my kind of guys. If we had a whole Congress like this, everybody that wants to impose limitations should impose them on themselves. And if Members did that, we would probably be cured of the problem that we complain of. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Urban Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to commend the last speaker, the gentleman from Washington State [Mr. Metcalf]. He is the first person that has gotten up and said I am going to invoke term limits on myself, I do not need a constitutional amendment, I urge and support one, but I am going to be my own controller of my fate. Now, if we could get all of the Members that are anxious to have term limits to support them, we will take care of this problem and maybe pass a constitutional amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, a veteran of this process and a leader in the Democratic Party.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary with whom I have served in many capacities.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we now come to the most objectionable of all the term limit proposals. The Inglis substitute would limit Congressmen to a mere 6 years--or three terms--in office. The proposal would make it impossible to run this institution in an orderly and intelligent fashion. If the Inglis substitute had been law none of the leaders selected by the Republican Party--not Majority Leader Armey, not Speaker Gingrich, and indeed not a single Republican committee chair--would have been eligible for office, let alone to assume their new leadership roles this Congress. And if the Inglis proposal is such a good idea, why didn't the Republicans choose any committee chairs from among those Members serving in their first three terms? I think the answer is obvious--a 6- year term limit does not make sense. It is the most radical of all the term limit substitutes. It would severely distort and disfigure the legislative process and recast our two century old Constitution so significantly that its authors would no longer recognize the first branch of Government. The jockeying for power that would occur in this place under a three-term cap would be unprecedented. The Inglis substitute would create a Congress of lame ducks and lead to an even greater proliferation of wealthy candidates who could afford to abandon their business careers for a few years. And the few Members who were not independently wealthy would be forced to spend most of their time currying favor with special interests so that they could further their postcongressional career opportunities. opportunity to garner the experience needed to master the many important substantive areas of Federal legislation. Issues relating to civil rights, intellectual property, Federal procurement, communications, intelligence, labor, and income tax policy--to name but a few--are all highly complex and sensitive. A 6-year term limit would significantly diminish the ability and incentives for Members to understand and positively influence legislation in these areas. The Members would have no choice but to turn to career staffers and bureaucrats. The result would be a massive shift of power from elected officials to unelected legislative and executive branch staffers and lobbyists. I urge the Members to reject this ill-considered proposal. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, after that remarkable performance by our chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], a member of our Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking subcommittee member from whose committee term limits came.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], who, although he is not a member of the committee, has done an outstanding job in working on this subject.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we have now reached that point in time in the plank of the Republicans' Contract With America which seeks to turn the Congress against itself. Like many of the other provisions of the much ballyhood contract, Mr. Chairman, the proposed term limits amendment has really very little to do with substance. Like the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto, this debate concerns mere procedure more than anything else. It does nothing to create more jobs, nothing to increase our citizens' standard of living, and nothing to reduce our trade deficit. Collectively these Republican procedural proposals say to the American be trusted to govern this country, that we must give the courts the power to balance the budget, and the President the power to cut spending, and today the Republicans would have us say that we cannot even trust the Members of this body to handle what little legislative responsibilities may remain with us as the second branch of Government. The irony is that these transfers in power from the legislative branch are being proposed at the very time the Republicans have achieved majority status. Well, I must respectfully disagree with those who say Congress is incapable of legislating, and, while this may be a radical idea, I continue to have faith in the scheme of Government that was laid out in our Constitution more than 2 centuries ago. The Founding Fathers considered this question, and they unanimously rejected term limits at that time. I fully agree with James Madison who wrote that term limits ``would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior * * * [and the Nation would be deprived] of the experience and wisdom gained by an incumbent.'' Mr. Chairman, I ask, where else is experience trashed as it will be during this debate? Where else will people who have gained from working on the job, who are being reelected and confirmed in their office on 2- year-period intervals, would such a notion as this be considered worthy of all the attention and furor that it will shortly receive? I also continue to have faith in the fundamental good judgment of the American voters who have already the power to impose term limits. We face the voters every 2 years; does anyone in this Chamber need to be reminded of that? The Senators, every 6 years. I do not think it a good idea to deny these voters the right to elect the person that they think best represents their interests, even though he or she may have received their support in years prior. This would turn the very basic principle of democracy on its head. I think the voters of Texas knew what they were doing when they reelected Sam Rayburn year after year after year, and the people of North Carolina knew what they were doing when they repeatedly returned Sam Ervin to office. His wise counsel and well-reasoned judgments helped steer this country through a dangerous Constitutional crisis that I recall very vividly. And what Member would have wanted to deny the voters of Florida the opportunity to reelect Claude Pepper so that he could fight for Social Security and health care benefits? May I also remind those who support term limits that the notion of a career Congress which they decry so vehemently is more myth than anything else. Membership in the House and the Senate is remade ever decade. In the early 1980's, a full three-fourths of Senators and Representatives had served less than 12 years, and more than one-half of the current Members of the House at this moment were elected on or after 1990. So, the best safeguard we have against rampant special interest abuse are the Members who have been around long enough to know the ropes and know where the bodies are buried. If the voters understood that the effect of term limits would be a massive transfer of power to the permanent bureaucracy of congressional and executive branch staff as well as to corporate and foreign lobbyists, they might not be quite so enamored of the idea. Given a choice between an elected official beholden to the voters and an unelected bureaucrat, I think the voters would prefer to place their trust in the elected official every time. Term limits are the worst possible example of cheap bumper sticker politics run amok. We have spent enough time kicking ourselves in the face and looking to other branches of government to solve our problems, and I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's stop wasting time with these procedural distractions and return to the business of running the country and improving the lives of citizens that we claim to represent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and I ask unanimous consent that he be able to control that time.