Subcommittee Hearing on "Limiting Terms of Office for Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S.
House of Representatives" - January 22, 1997
Testimony by Congressman Joe Barton
Representative of Texas
U.S. House of Representatives
I would like to thank Chairman Canady and the other members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing about term limits for Members of Congress and allowing me to testify.
The Congress is nearing another vote on the popular concept of term limits for Members of Congress. The American people have made the point clear over the last few years in almost every poll taken that they believe in rotating their public officials in and out of office. Their broad support for term limits has been based on the fundamental principles that our nation was founded upon, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Many contend that long term incumbency changes the views of government officials and that the overwhelming advantages of incumbency makes elections less competitive or less representative of the American public. Term limits give a more representative form of government and enriches civic life by giving more citizens the opportunity to serve their localities or states. It is no wonder that twenty-three states have added term limit provisions into their state constitutions.
The "Contract-with America" that the 104th Congress prescribed also stated that the "House Republicans recognized the rights of the states and the rights of citizens to limit the terms of their elected officials." Despite the victories on the state level, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on May 22, 1995, that state-imposed limits on federally elected officials was unconstitutional. The Court held that the only legitimate way to secure limits on congressional tenure was to amend the United States Constitution. Nine states countered by passing resolutions instructing their members to support term limits of six years in the House and twelve years in the Senate or have their refusal printed next to their name on the next election ballot.
As a result, in the 105th Congress, our constituencies have, again, turned to Congress to solve the problem. In the 104th Congress, we reviewed several methods to impose term limits. However, none garnered the necessary 290 votes for passage. I strongly believe that if this Congress is serious about term limits, then it should enact the Dingell/Barton amendment. Our bill calls for limits of twelve years in the House and twelve years in the Senate EXCEPT that the amendment becomes effective upon ratification by the Congress and the states. In addition, our bill is a "lifetime ban", not a nonconsecutive term versions. Retroactive term limits is the strongest method possible to fulfill the wishes of the American people for representative government. Those individuals who truly support term limits and the wishes of their constituents should vote for the Dingell/Barton retroactive term limits amendment.
I believe that the American people are watching our votes and looking for accountability and responsibility in government. I believe that we must not work to protect ourselves but-be about the will of the people. The Dingell/Barton bill is a serious effort to enact term limits in a real, sensible fashion that the American people want. I thank the subcommittee for its time and appreciate your granting me the opportunity to speak before you today.
Judiciary Homepage