Transcripts For CSPAN3 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Congressional Term Limits 20240714

Up next a senate panel looks at the pros and cons of setting term limits for advocate. Advocates argue that term limits would allow them to spend time raising money for reelection. We hear from senator jim demint at this subcommittee hearing on the constitution. Good afternoon. This hearing is called to order. I apologize that we are slightly delayed. We had a series of votes on the senate floor. But it is good now to convene the hearing. Let me begin by thanking all of you for attending. And thank youing senator hirono oh efor working with plea and my staff to convene the hearing and bring the witnesses together. The topic before us is one, i believe, of great importance. The need for term limits for members of congress so that we begin to fix what is broken here in washington politics. Before i introduce our first panel id like to explain why weve organized todays hearing. The 2016 election, the American People made a resounding call to drain the swamp. That is modern washington. And sadly this is a bipartisan problem. The American People have lost confidence in washington and especially in congress. And it isnt hard to see why. Enmeshed in back room deals and broken promises, our capitol has too often become a political playground for the powerful and well connected. For members of the permanent Political Class looking to accumulate more and more power at the expense of american taxpayers. As part of his promise to drain the swamp, President Trump strongly endorsed and campaigned on passing congressional term limits. Though our founders didnt include term limits in the constitution, they feared the creation of a permanent Political Class that existed parallel to rather than within american society. As Benjamin Franklin observed, quote, in free governments, the rulers are the servants. And the people their superiors. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them. The fears of the framers have today been realized. Today the swamp is hard at work picking winners and losers. With hard working americans typically winding up on the losing end. Every Year Congress spends billions of dollars on give aways for the well connected. Washington insiders get taxpayer money. Members of congress get reelected. And the system works for everyone except the American People. In kind of selfinterest builds on itself as members spend more and more time in office. In an age in which the partisan divide seem intractable, it is remarkable that public support for congressional term limits remains strong across party lines. In poll after poll conducted over decades, americans who are republicans, democrats, who are independents, american who are conservatives, liberals, moderating, men, women, who are angle o american, africanamerican, hispanic, all support term limits by overwhelming margins. For example, a 2018 maclaughlin Associates Poll found that 812 of americans support term limits for congress. Including 89 of republicans, but also 76 of democrats. Support term limits. 83 of independents support term limits. 72 of hispanics support term limits. And 70 of africanamericans support term limits. Indeed, the one group it seems in america that doesnt support term limits are career politicians here in washington. Everybody else recognizes the problem. A 2016 rasmussen poll shod showed much the same thing as did 2013 factual up poll. These results have been consistent year after year. Ending the dynamic of congress enriching insiders and using those insiders to hold to powers favors Neither Party. Its not a problem of just republicans or just democrats. Restoring confidence and accountability in congress shouldnt be the business of Just One Party or of just this committee or even of just the senate. It concerns all americans. Whatever your politics. So why hasnt congress acted already . Its straightforward. Too many career politicians dont want to restrict their own power. And Neither Party wants to act on its own. Still, the American People recognize that congressional term limits would help fix the brokenness and corruption fostered by career politician in washington today. At our founding representatives left homes, farms, businesses traveled to washington to represent constituents. Serving in congress for a time. But usually returned to their homes and affairs. Leaders like George Washington and john adams and James Madison reach the height of political power and then reling wished it to return to public life private life. But today members of congress arent doing that. Instead far too many of our politicians come to washington to stay. Too much of washingtons business is dictated by career politicians by bureaucrats and by lobbyists spending time as one or the other. The rise of political careerism in modern washington is a sharp departure from what the founders intended in our federal governing bodies. To effectively drain the swamp and to end the phenomenon of career politicians its long past time to enact term the limits for congress. I the author of a constitutional amendment that would limit u. S. Senators to two sixyear terms and would limit members of the house of representatives to the three twoyear terms. At this point we have currently four coresponseners the senate. Its my hope the hearing today helps explain why we should come across party lines to enact term limits to protect the American People. The senate i believe should take up and vote on the term limits amendment that ive introduced and if congress will simply listen to the American People to the overwhelming Majorities Across Party Lines that want to see term limits which we have for the president , see term limits also for congress, then we can rest confident that the states would quickly ratify that amendment. The only impediment is the United States congress. And i hope that this hearing and the panel that we haved to, the two panels will help move that discussion forward. With that i recognize senator hirono for her opening. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of our witnesses for coming this afternoon. To discuss whether or not Congress Congressional term limits are an effective way to improve our government. I know senator cruz believes that term limits would help solve the problems we have with corruption, conyism and accountability in congress. But there are better and easier ways and i would say more effective ways to connect the government more directly and honestly to the people. In my view the most effective term limits are elections. And the most knowledgeable term limiters are voters. To venting strengthen voting this constitutional mechanism of accountability we should be working to ensure more americans are able to vote. By making votes easier in the United States, not harder. By making Voter Registration as simple as possible. By stopping unnecessary and discriminatory purging of voter roles. By making it easier for people to vote early or allow them to vote by mail. Id say that the American People were asked whether they support the aforementioned points probably wed find that a vast majority would support these suggestions. But congress is not acting to do any of those things. We should all condemn discriminatory voter id laws. Partisan gerry mannedering and enact law to reverse the Shelby County decision. We should also admit that there is no crisis of voter fraud and instead counter the real problems of Election Fraud, like we saw in North Carolina and Election Security. We should pass any of the very sound bills proposed by my colleague that is would require reporting of offers of foreign election interference, secure election systems and require paper ballots. We dont need to artificially restrict voters voices. Instead, we should expand voting access and opportunities. The more eligible americans voting in every election, the better. Full stop. Our concerns about corruption can be tackled by improving ethics rules and procedures. Lets make sure that there is more reporting and transparency, not just in congress, but across all branches of government. If what we want is more confidence in elected officials lets make it easier for voters to trust us. Anyone elected to Public Office in in country or even appointed to high positions of trust like the cabinet should have the should have to prove to the public that their only interest is the public interest. We should all have to divest ourselves of any private business interests, from small peanut farms to large multinational branding companies, to anything in between. We should not be able to profit from our Public Service once we are finished with it either. If for example you served as head of a department making decisions about detaining immigrants, like former secretary of Homeland Security john kelly you shouldnt be allowed immediately to go through the revolving door and get paid by a Corporation Building the detention facilities. Former members of congress should not have floor privileges if they use them to lobby clients. No one elected officials have problems with public trust. We do not police ourselves effectively. A final thing id like to highlight is the mechanism for improving government thats right there in our constitution as the first of the bill of rights. Im talking about freedom of press. If we want to make our elected officials more accountable, we should all sport the rights of a free press. Because no matter how good voter turnout is, no matter how safe the elections systems are, no matter how transparent members of congress are about our conflicts, as Justice Lewis brand ice rode. Look electric lights the most efficient policeman, end quote. Instead calling thefree press the enemy of the people and calling their access to what the government is doing we need to champion their role and increase transparency. The more informed voters are, the better choices will be, and the more responsive our government will become. So while i agree with senator cruz that congress and government as a whole owes our voters more than they are getting now. I dont agree that term limits is the answer. In a testing ground of of state governments term limits have served to strengthen the executive branch at the expense of legislatures making lobbyists more not less influential and they restrict voters choices. I do look forward to hearing more details from our witnesses on both sides of the question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator hirono. Well now introduce our first witness. The honorable jim demint. Kmarm of the Partner Partnership ship institute. A friend to many on this committee. Senator demint served the American People in both houses of congress from 1999 to 2005. He represented South Carolinas Fourth District and from 2007 to 2013 he represented the state of South Carolina and the United States senate. Where he authored leading conservative reforms to health care, education, taxes and entitlements. Among his many achievements senator demint led conservative efforts to ban congressional earmarks, something that the republican conference this year made a permanent ban within our conference. Most relevant to todays hearing, senator demint led an effort to impose term limits on members of the house and senate. Ultimately taking a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the senate that the constitution ought to be amended to include term limits to the to the floor of the senate. At the conclusion of his service in the senate, senator demint became the president of the heritage foundation, working there for four years. Senator demint is currently the chairman of the conservative policy institute. And he is also the founder of the Senate Conservatives fund. Senator demint is the author of several books, including now or never, saving america from economic collapse, the Great American awakening, two years that changed america, saving freedom, we can stop americas slide into socialism, and most recently, falling in love with america again. Which debuted at number number one on the Washington Post best seller list. Senator dekmint welcome and i would ask that you stand and be sworn in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god. I do. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Former colleagues on the subcommittee, its extremely gracious of you to invite me today, especially considering im going to spend my time advocating for your unemployment. Its nothing personal, i promise. I get the opportunity to travel all over the country and speak to a lot of groups. And i find there are many issues where the opinions of the American People and congress are divergent. But there are few issues where that gap is as large as the issue of term limits. If you need a standing applause line, its talk about term limits and people will stand up and applaud. As mr. Mr. Chairman you already pointed out, somewhere between 75, 80 of americans believe in term limits. Not only for congressman and senators but they sure like the idea of judges and bureaucrats but because they instinctively know what is an Eternal Truth that power corrupts. And in washington seniority is closely associated with power. There are good arguments for and against congressional term limits. And niece are roughly the same arguments that delegates debated at the constitutional convention. It was george mason of virginia who argued that nothing is so essentially to the republican government as a periodic rotation of his representative processes. Rufus king of new york insisted that he who has proved himself to be most fit for office ought not to be excluded by the constitution from holding it. In theory, both are right. A governmental turnover is undeniably healthy for any republic. Especially for one as large diverse as we are. Meanwhile, excluding capable legislators from serving would be a loss. The philosophical argument about term limits can be a close call as it was in 1787. Unlike our founders, however, we dont have to confine our debate to theoretical abstractions we can draw on real world experience with our 230yearold system and especially performance of the last few decades. And the practical case for term limits, mr. Chairman is no longer a close call. We do not have to speculate as the founders did that the prospect of a permanent tenure in Congress Might tempt senators and representatives toward selfinterested, shortterm thinking. We know for fact especially in recent decades when control of congress has been constantly up for grabs, in shortterm thinking has become congresss defining defect. For individual members, shortterm thinking warps incentives towards bringing home the bacon and fund raising and to the special interests who can deliver them both. Members spend less time legislating and more time raising money. Both for their own reelections and for the Political Action committees specifically designed to finance their careers ambitions. And members quickly give up Campaign Promises of bold ideas such as balancing the budget and turn to new programs spending more money that they can deliver to their constituents. As individual members have retreated from their legislative responsibilities, Party Leaders have, however poorly, filled the gap. Given incentives, leaders now use the house and senate not as legislative institutions but as arms of their parties campaign committees. The senate in particular no longer functions as a legislative body at all. Leaders of both parties have shut down deliberative floor debate and amendment votes for the sole purpose of shielding senators from political politically controversial votes. There by denying the American Peoples right to an accountable legislature. Members who criticize this dysfunctional shirts versus skin approached are chastised for not being team players. And threatened with being cut off from Party Leaders, special interests fund z raising gravy train. Conscious burdened senators and representatives are reassured that this process however imperfect is simply how they make their way in washington. But in truth its how washington makes its way into them. Lifelong tenure incentivizing members to prioritize the next election over the next generation. And partisanship over statesmanship. Relion interests away from the American People and towards the swamp. The consequences are all around us. The 22 trillion national debt, the wasteful pork barrel programs appropriated specifically to facility reelection. The unending entitlement programs that both parties know are hurling the nation into insolvency. Congresss lack of oversight over the sprawling federal bureaucracy. The power of special interests, particularly the corrupt allure of the post congressional career on k street for members who play ball. The total disappearance of the budget process, the breakdown of the legislative process, especially in the senate, the mindless parts. Ship, the collapse of Public Confidence in congress as an institution. Now, i know term limits would not solve all these problems. But they would significantly change incentives throughout the political system. And Washington Fund raising would become less important and special interests would be less powerful and partisanship less personally or politically rewarding. Term limits might open up space and maybe even provide a little courage towards action on politically difficult issues like entitlement refrp health care, immigration and budget reform. By closing off avenues to be something important, term limits might reintroduce senators and representatives to the appeal of doing something important. For their sbaents, for their country and for themselves. The end result would be more accountable. A more accountable more statesman like and in time a more trusted and respected congress. Mr. Chairman, as i said before, our congress is on an unsustainable course. We do have the 22 trillion debt, near trillion dollar annual deficits. Process the trust funds for Social Security and medicare have been spent on other things. The Transportation Fund is empty. And we could go on and on. Thats why when i ran for congress i limited my own term consistent with your amendment of six years in the house and two in the senate, opening to get the freedom to rock the boat, to challenge the system, trying to change this unsustainable course to one where we can build a better america. And im grateful for you for introducing it. I am very well aware of all the arguments on both sides. But when i came to congress i supported term limits in theory. Now i support it after sighing what really happens here. And we know as i said before that power corrupts and it has corrupted absolutely here in washington. And its the seniority system that drives it all. Thank you, mr. Chairman annually entertain any questions if youd like. Thank you senator demint for the powerful testimony process. I will Say Something you said at the tail end is actually something i found myself saying many times when im back in texas, which is before i was elected to the senate i supported term limits. But having now served here, having seen it firsthand, i support term limits a thousand times more. You served in both the house of representatives and u. S. Senate. Can you share from your own experience what serving in congress why that led to you support term limits . Why it underscored the need for a limit on the terms . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I believed coming in as a businessman who had never been involved in politics of the idea of a citizen statesman, folks coming to washington and representing their constituents for a limited period and coming back and living under the laws that they passed. I did find a lot if you limit your own term under the current situation, you are at a disadvantage. I was denied committees. A number of things. You know, i was told right away if i wanted to raise money in washington i need to disavow my pledge. Its certainly not a welcomed thing here in washington. But as i said before, the most important thing to me was not to become a part of the problem that i ran for congress to get rid of. And that was the entrenched political establishment that was vested in the status quo. Careening our country towards really bankruptcien a a lot of other things that bothered me. I felt term limits would give me the freedom to come, rock the boat, fight the system and not feel i had to have my eyes on the prize of a committee or chairmanship or eventually be in leadership. And i knew limiting my term and rocking the boat that none of those would come my way. I think its true, my perspective was always different. I always said if you are going to if you are going to run a race and you know its a hundred yards you can give it your all. I did that in the house and senate. But if youre going out jogging a ways you can do it for a long, long time. And you dont really reach a destination in the same way you did. So, again, ive heard the arguments mr. Chairman well have a permanent staff, have a permanent bureaucracy, that elections are the best term limits. But we know the power of incumbency. We knows what happened to preserve the seniority system. And its way beyond what it was when i got here. And the only way to limit terms where the way we did it for the president of the United States, thats to put it in the constitution. In your testimony, you talked about incentives. Its been my observation that the dominant incentive in the United States senate and for that matter in the house is risk aversion. You know, ive been at numerous townhalls back home in texas where sins will ask neal say, do members of congress do they believe anything . Are they just you know, do they believe anything when they first ran . And what i usually share with folks is i said look i think most people running for congress they do so because they do believe in principles on the democratic side, republican side. They come here with an idea of changing things. But then the incentives become the overwhelming dominant desire is i must get reelected. And that zavs anything else. And they find themselves its a little bit like the wonderful movie series the god father. Where in each of the stories is story of michael corleone, the good son, making decisions each of which seems in its own perfectly reasonable, rational. Michael steps forward to save his father. His father is going to be murdered. But each rationalization leads him down the road to becoming a mass murderer, in much the same way i think elected members of congress they make small concessions to well i want to do something big, i want to balance the budget, address the debt. I want to strengthen and reform Social Security and medicare. But i got to get reelected first. And its those series of small concessions one after the other after the other that they find and i think this is true on both sides of the aisle. You look at both republicans and democrats afraid to Work Together in a bipartisan manner because the overwhelming objective is we must get reelected. Do those observation attention does that comport with what you saw when you served here . And what you see as an informed observer today . Yes, they do. But i dont think either one of us want to suggest that our unterm limited colleagues are mass murderers mr. Chairman. I wouldnt want to associate with that. I know thats not what you meant. What i have observed and see everyone, republican and democrat comes here with good intentions. And a lot of bold ideas to change. But it usually comes to change a system. We find very quickly that there is no reward for changing something. Particularly no reward for cutting anything, eliminating any program or cutting spending. All the rewards in washington are for growing government, spending more money and creating more programs and protecting the status quo. I have seen again that people come with a lot of good intentions. But there are very few i could probably count them on one handout of the more than 500 congressman and senators who have been here more than ten years who are still fighting for the thing they came for. I think that should tell us something on its face, that this place this town, in swamp changes the whole alignment from what we come for and what we end up doing. Its just big are than we are as individuals. Term rimts would allow folks to keep the focuses back home what they are doing after congress. Making sure they do everything they can before the next election to accomplish their goals rather than what we see here time and time again just like i read in the news today, there will be no consideration of Health Reform until after the next election. And i heard that so many times, mr. Chairman. Demint this is not the right time or the right way to do this. You need to wait. And again, im not suggesting this is going to solve all our problems. Ranking member has mentioned other things that we can do. So this is not a silver bullet. But this is one that will fundamentally change incentives and align what with he do here with i think our founders vision of citizen statesman representing the American People. Although i might be obliged to say that mo grown was a friend of mine. I will take your friendly amendment that at least the overwhelming majority of congress are not currently mass murderers. With that senator hirono. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I note that the chairman noted that members of congress are very risk averse and that the only thing they care about is reelections. And therefore they are risk averse. But i have to note that, for example when the Affordable Care act was passed that was a huge change to our health care laws. There were people in congress who lost their elections, reelections because any voted for the aca. I would hardly call that risk averse or when the Senate Passed the comprehensive Immigration Law act which sadly the republicancontrolled house did not act upon, that was a huge risk taking move on the part of the senate. Or i have to say, when we voted on judge kavanaugh to become a lifetime justice on the supreme court, you have three members of the senate who voted against him, knowing full well that their reelection was going to be hurt. And in fact they lost their elections. So i hardly think that you know that kind of broad statement says much good in my opinion. Now, senator, we are aware that since 2013 the average time of senators has been 10. 2 years. And that the average term of house members is 9. 1 years. And then among the 116 congress, that the average term of senators is only 10. 6 years. Did you know that. Yes, i did. So even without term limits people are not staying the kind of forever you postlate i put that in for the record. May i kmaent zpl are you zuting the amount of time. No perspective there. I found that lots of new members come and g. And folks serving serb for a shorter time. Just after the great 2010 tea party. Lots of new people came in or the 1994 the republican revolution in the house. But what happens is all the new people with bold ideas come in. And all of the committees are controlled by Senior Members who have been here 15 and 20 years. Thats what i found. All the the changing Social Security, the things to fix med kir, the things i came to do, balancing the budget, they were always thwarted by Senior Members in both parties on committees that were standing for the status quo. Excuse me, senator, but i would say the tea party had a tremendous sway in the u. S. House, because i was there. Let me move on. I think you said in your Opening Statement that voters favor term limits for judges. Did i hear you correctly. Yes, they do. Do you think that is a good idea that we should have term limits for federal judges, including. I think its something. Including the supreme court. Its something to dont and consider. Its not part of the senator cruzs amendment. But i know from talking to people around the country the lifetime appointment for judges is not a very popular idea. Yeah, i would think so especially now as we are packing the courts with a lot of judges who have very strong ideological perspectives. You mentioned in other statements that corruption is related to seniority of elected officials. And see just a feeling from your experience . Or is there data that reflects that connection between corruption and seniority . I think there is a lot of evidence. We certainly have seen Senior Members of committee, particularly back in the earmark days where many members. Of course we no longer have earmarks. That is something that would not have happened if i had not been term limited. I can guarantee you that. Because i led the effort in the senate and it was very unpopular among Senior Members. And of both parties and k street. Actually im asking you if you can cite so any studies or analysis that points to a connection between corruption and seniority . Because id like to read those studies. Well, we there are a number of people who have been been to jail for corruption. A lot of those are senior committees, particularly appropriators over the years that data is readily available. I would have to look it up and google or something. Okay. Id really like us to i think all of us share the concern over corruption, of course. And there is a lot of a lot of thats happening right now in front of our faces. But be that as it may, im not sure that term limits is the answer. Im glad you mentioned that its not the silver bullet. Its not the be you will aen a end all. Speaking of studies are you familiar with the academic literature like the work of one of our upcoming witnesses linda powell shows extinguishingically that term limits dont have the effect of cleaning up government or making it more effective or responsive. Ive been familiar with it and been part of studies at the state level looking at term limits. Its clearliest eftd that states like california gamed the system. While states like florida where they have actually because of term limits a lot of positive reforms and education choice, pension reform was keeping their tax rate low, keeping their economy, we of course i have seen the studies. But states are much smaller, the corruption possibility, the concentration of power is nothing like what it is up here. So i see the arguments for again, i work on term limits at the state level. And i believe in it. But i think the the real change would happen if we limited terms in washington. We are going to hear from professor powell later. I take it you dont agree with those conclusions and those studies. So did you say that you can cite to evidence that points the other way that term limits in fact would . Well. Reduce. A lot of my evidence is is experience. I was here. And i have seen the studies. Again ive been part of a lot of them. But my conclusion after serving is that term limits would drastically change the incentives and do a lot to reduce corruption and do a with whole lot more to get people representing the good of the country, which, again, i think the subject of term limits can come under the titles of what do we have to lose . If we look at where this country is right now, i cannot imagine any collection of alternative representatives who could have done our country more of a misservice than the people who have been here the last three decades. And i include myself in that number. Mr. Chairman, i realize im about about the time that you spent. May i ask one more question. Sure. In my Opening Statement i cited to certain things we could do to make voting much easier, to make sure that our voting systems are not hacked. Do you agree with those items that i cited . I think we should do everything we can to facilitate the voting of american citizens. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator hirono. You know, i would note that in response to the observation of congressional risk aversion that senator hirono pointed to three examples they cited of congressional courage. The vote of the democratic majorities in favor of obamacare, the vote of the exactic majorities in favor of amnesty and the exact who voted against brett kavanaugh. While those may be examples of courage. Those are examples of where those elected officials were voting number one consistently with big money special interest here in washington. But number two, in each of those circumstances they were voting against the overwhelming interests and views of constituents which is why the obamacare view vote produced the republican takeover of the house of representatives in 2010. It is why the amnesty vote helped produce the republican takeover of the senate in 2014. And its why the vote against Justice Kavanaugh retired several democratic members. Bus in those instances, the senators were voting against the views and interests of constituents. In this instance with term limits, the overwhelming majority of my constituents of senator hirono as constituents and everyone elses agree with term limits. And we ought to have the courage to stand and fight for our constituents. Obviously we have a disagreement. Yes. There you go. What a democracy. Thank you. Senator senator sas. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for scheduling this very important hearing. Senator demint thanks for being here and your work on this topic. Thanks also and congratulations for your work on the earmark ban. As has been reported, the republican conference voted last month to permanently ban earmarks. I cant believe that. In 2010, 2012, is 14 and 16. There was earmark ban and every year is came back frankensteinlike. Instead of banning them another two years i led the charge in our conference with important assist from senator cruz trying to get the earmark ban permanent. We want to make sure you get lotes of credited for the fact that you were one of the first people championing this congratulations thank you for following through. I think mr. Smith goes to washington would have been an incredibly crappy movie if Jimmy Stewart had stayed around for 100 years. Cozied up to k street and done absolutely everything skfable to keep his job here. Yet there is no way you can tell the really important story about someone coming to fight for something if one of their main calculus calulai im not sure of the latin if the question is is this popular, 12, 18 months from now, soot is this the right thing to do for my kids and grand kids we need more longtime thinking and not shortterm finger in the wind. If you are draining the swamp you have to drive the people the swamp protecters back home. Right now we have a bunch of people getting elected and decide its a oneway ticket. People are from where they are from one run for office and once any get to washington they boy a permanent home and eventually stop visiting the home they came from and start to have a calculus that staying in washington forever is a key part of defining their identity and service. And i think its pretty obvious that one of the reasons we never tackle entitlement reform around here is because its obviously the right longtime thing to do. And in the shortterm its really mess ys to admit the truth that politicians havent told the truth about the longtime budget and we have regularly overpromised. And when you come clean with the American People about that, there is going to be a whole bunch of blood on the floor at first when you tell the truth about that. So i would love it if you would itemize a few of the most important topics of legislation that you think we all know we should tackle and yet shortterm political calculus leads everybody to say well maybe after the next election. Thank you, senator. I recall after the 2010 elections a number of us wanted to balance the budget. And we we picked the debt limit as a fight that we would grant the debt limit increase if we could get legislation to balance the budget over 10 years. We called it cut, cap and balance. In reality there was very little cut. It was a slowing of growth over a 10year period and economic incentives where the growth actually balanced the budget in ten years. I was just amazed by my own party that this was such a simple idea after a wave of people had been elected and tea party on the constitution, on balancing the budget, about what about the debt . And the bailouts, that the most resistance we had turbbalancing the budget over a 10year period was it was from all the Senior Members, particularly the appropriators in the senate. Including and especially the republican leadership. Such a good example of a wave of new people who came in fresh from the campaign trail where any made all the promises and commitments to people and they came with vision and just love for the country. But everyone told them immediately that their expectations were too high. And thats what this place does to you. It dumbs down expectation within weeks of getting here. And the nexus of power and reward is from seniority. The fund raising gets more, the special interests get behind you and you have more control of communications. And if you are trying to cut spending like if i had to give you one thing it would be we have to balance the budget. We cant keep spending more than we are bringing in. But cutting anything in washington has so much punishment associatewood it by every constituent of every program that no reasonable person is going to keep doing that. You are either going home or get unelected. And so we have got all the incentives in place here to destroy our country. I think one of the only ways to change those incentives is to bring new people up here who know they will be here a short period and give it everything theyve got for their country. And one way or another they are going home. But if they are fighting for a lifetime career they are going to do what all of you suggested right away, the calculus of what do i have to do to stay here . And its to do something up here and pretend to be Something Else back home. Thats the game. Could you unpack were almost at time but could you unpack more the distinction between california and florida . Because there are lots of thoughtful people opposing term limit legislation. And one of the things that they regularly say is that many state capitols have the example of term limits passed that empowered staff and lobbyists and didnt lead to significant legislative courage and reform. And you drew a distinction between california where any dont havent worked and florida where they have. Can you unpack why. It would be a longer discussion. But california does game the system. It is a very controlled by one party of people who move in and out. But theyll move from one thing to another to appointed position. And there is someone im sure a lot of people who could explain it better than i. But i have been with legislatures all over the country. And the vibrancy of those legislatures who are under term limits particularly all you have to do is go to an event in florida. And again its not perfect, doesnt solve all the problems. But theyre thinking about when is best for the state now. What can i do now . And theyre also thinking how they can bump off you guys up here and graduate because theyre term limited at the state level. And whether thats healthy or not im not sure. But i know up here we have term limits on the republican side of some committee chairman. We game that system as soon as they term limit one they will be chairman of another committee based on seniority. The but the problems here are different than the state. And that we have particularly as senators very large staff. But i have seen as new members come in they bring in a lot of their own people. The problems are the committees we need to rotate those staff off periodically. But we can do that. Thats not a problem that should keep us from doing something that we know would create a more responsive legislature, more responsive congress here. So again, ive heard all the excuses seen the analysis of the different states. Some do it well, some dont. But the bottom line for me after serving here and looking at all the evidence and you know direct research as well as anecdotal is this is one of the most important reforms that we could make. Thank you, senator. Lee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you senator demint for being here. Ive known you a linc time and admired you from afar long before i came to know you as a friend and colleague. I appreciate your message today. Reminds me a little bit of a statement attributed to st. Augustine during the version to christianity lord grant me crafty and convert yew but not yet. He wanted to wit. Its always easier to wait to do the right thing. Especially true in washington. You mentioned a minute ago some of the arguments that are frequently raised in argument to against term limits one its not a panacea. Its not solving every problem. As if to suggest we if we cant solve every problem lets not solve this one. What can you tell us about your persons about how individual members might behave differently if the term limits were on the books and imposed by the constitutional amendment . Well, weve talked a lot about it. But if again, the freedom that comes from being able to act for your constituents and not to act towards getting a future position on a committee or chairmanship, and most of you know sitting up there you rock the boat, your first year up here, which you did, the chances of you going into elected leadership in the conference go down dramatically. It would surprise me. So, again, if you come up and you want to get to be a the prize when i got here was to be a Senior Member of appropriations. Once the earmarks went away it was not as desirable a committee to be on. But to have the seniority means you raise more money. All the lobbyists come to your fund raisers. That creates ability of you to endue yourself to other members by raising money in your pac. All of this creates a nexus of power that goes with seniority that we see with corruption. If i could interject one of my colleagues handed me a list of 13 former Senior Members sent to jail because of bribry or corruption here this is the American Government this is 13 here. Mr. Chairman id like to submit the names for the record if i could. Without objection. And but the evidence is everywhere that seniority, again, protects the status quo. It stops us from solving the huge problems. And then its the seniority system that allows people to come in and create in new program because the only bipartisan consensus now in congress is when you create something new and spend more money. There is never any other bipartisan agreement. Its well said. I appreciate your insight on that. I also appreciated the distinction you drew during opening stem between the philosophical arguments for term limits and the practical arguments. Its trg to think about the fact that this 230yearold document is one thats functioned well. Fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has known, done so in part because of fact that it adequately harnessed human nature. Taking into accounts certain aspects of human nature, and pitted one faction against another. One branch of government against another, so that no one person or group of people could get too much power. I think they probably did as you were alluding to earlier make the right decision when they decided initially fallout to put term limits into the original constitution. There are some things that have changed since then, or the Founding Fathers didntsince th the Founding Fathers did not adequately take into account. I suspect that one of them might have been the rise of the dominant twoparty system. Another might have been the access of accumulation of power within washington. The transfer of as much power from the states to washington as has happened. And then with that transfer of power, the drive to delegate out the lawmaking power to someone else. Can you speak to that . And what the Founding Fathers might have missed . A lot has changed really knew the conditions of those serving in the early congresses, it would not be necessary to limit terms in the sense of, it was not full time. There was very little pay. There was no retirement programs with different thrift savings programs. The limited staff, long travel to get here. It was certainly a sacrifice. So, folks needed to have other jobs back home. Farms or whatever, to make things work. That wasnt quite the danger. But now, the allure here in washington is quite different. You can make it a fulltime career, with decent retirement, and oppose congressional career that can be very lucrative. Lots of staff. Again, it is a very different situation. And the money and politics, and i think as you alluded to, senator lee, is the power that has convened here in washington dc from all over the world. It is here because of the concentration of political power. Now we have a concentration of economic power. Concentration of media power. And all of that really comes back to the real powers and the seniority within these walls. And, we cannot fix it with one fell swoop, but we can sure break up a lot of it and change the incentives in a hurry. Will set. Thank you. Thank you, senator demint. One final question. You testified about how Public Opinion supports term limits, 8020. This is across racial lines, across ethnic lines, across party lines. Republicans, democrats, independent. When you brought forward to resolution in support of term limits before the senate, it was voted down, 7524. Do you know of another issue on which the views of congress are so wildly out of step . The americans people supported 8020, and yet the senate voted down 7524. The opposite side. You know another issue with the views are so wildly out of step . And why is it that career politicians in both parties are defining the will of their constituents . Its a great question. Again, it is still a great issue to run on. But a lot of the money now, even when you are running for office, is not going to be there if you limit your term. I was told that when i ran for senate. A lot of the big packs were not going to give to you if you limit your term. Because they dont want to invest in someone who is not going to be there very long. Thank you mr. Chairman. And i appreciate your initiative on this issue. And i hope it will get some open and honest debate. Very good, thank you. Senator demint will call it the second panel and proceeded immediately to the second panel. While we are waiting for the second panel, you mentioned, mr. Chairman, any other issues the American People support by a wide margin. Yes, they support gun registration. They support abortion. Were not doing anything about those either. Weve got to get rid of it. Senator corona, if youre going to make a statement, i will at least respond with the facts. The overwhelming majority of americans support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. When it comes to abortion, the current position of the modern democratic party, which supports unlimited abortion on demand, partialbirth abortion up to the moment of birth, with taxpayer funding, and no parental notification and consent. 9 of americans agree with the position of todays democratic party. That is an extreme and out of step position. I disagree. There are facts that support why i disagree. Please introduce four witnesses on a second panel. Mr. Nick, lita is the executive director of u. S. Term limits. One of the nations leading advocacy groups in favor of term limits. Under his leadership, u. S. Term limits launch the term limits convention, a campaign to obtain a constitutional amendment for term limits via convention of the states. Nick is a graduate of university of connecticut and is currently resides in melbourne, florida with his family. Our second witness is professor linda w powell. Professor powell is a professor of Political Science at the university of rochester, where she teaches primarily courses on american politics. Her work has won the final price, the best book award of the legislative student section of the american Political Science association. And the great price, the best book award of the state politics and policy section of the aps a. Among her many publications, she has authored or coauthored work related to the effects of term limits at the state level. Professor powell received her phd in american politics from the university of rochester. The third witness is Professor John d roche. Roche is the teal professor of Political Science at the texas a m University Near amarillo, texas. Professor roche has conducted Extensive Research into term limits on the effects of term limits in particular at the state level. He has also written or contributed numerous books and published articles, including the Texas Edition of the leading American Government textbook, government in america, people, politics and policy. Professor roche received his ba from the university of alaska at fairbanks, and his ma and phd from the university of oklahoma, where he wrote his dissertation on term limits. Our final witnesses mr. Casey forgot. Mr. Burr got is the senior fellow of the governance project of the R Street Institute where he researches and writes about congressional capacity and ways to make congress function better. He previously worked at the Congressional Research service where he served at the end executive Branch Operations and the congress and judiciary sections. Mr. Burgott holds a ba in Political Science from Arizona State university, masters in political management from George Washington university, and received his phd in government and politics from the university of maryland, where his dissertation focused on the impact of congressional staff. Our first witness, mr. Tom bolinas. Thank you mr. Chairman and senators for providing me an opportunity to address this important issue. I want you to imagine for a moment that you are an employer, and you have got some problems with your employees. When you hired these employees, they promised they would do exactly what you asked of them. But once they got the job, they became a nightmare. They stopped listening to you and started using the job to line their own pockets. They took the Company Credit card and racked up more debt than you can afford to pay back. They became so obsessed with keeping their jobs that they forgot to do their jobs. And after all that failure, all that disappointment, and all that incompetence, your employees came to you and said, we deserve a raise. If youre a reasonable person, that should make your blood boil. And yet, that is exactly what it feels like to be an american taxpayer. The first three words in our constitution are we the people. It is written that larger than anything else because the framers of that document, the architects of our republic wanted to remind you at all times, who is in charge. We the people. We are your employers, and you have an obligation to listen to us. So, i come to you with a message from the American People. We demand term limits for members of congress. That, according to the most recent National Polls on the issues, 82 of americans want term limits. That include support from 89 of republicans, 76 of democrats and 83 of independent voters. This is not a left or right issue. This is an american issue. In fact, term limits could be the only issue with support from both President Trump and former president obama. There was a time about 25 years ago when congress was debating this. Nearly every opponent of term limits appear had the same rebuttal. Experience, experience, experience. We need experience to do this job right. If only Congress People in office for decades on end, he or she would be such a policy expert that all the problems will be sought. I thought, that was one of the worst predictions ever. The system is broken. Congress has given is 22 trillion in debt. The longest war in american history. Broken healthcare system. Broken immigration system. The tax code written by lobbyists, an explosion of money in politics. First of all, too few here have the courage to address these problems because the only focus is on getting reelected. Thats why it comes as no surprise that congress has a 60 14 approval rating. And 60 of americans say that they would fire every Single Member of congress if they could. Congress is less popular than traffic jams, root canals, and hemorrhoids. Your beading head lice, but the lice have asked for a recount. Unfortunately, elections alone cannot fix this problem. Not because voters like you guys so much, but due to the nearly unbreakable power of incumbency. At the same time, members of Commerce Congress claim elections are free and fair, they secretly employ every trick in the book to reclaim retain power. Every dollar that goes to a challenger. And comets are having difficulty raising money, not to worry. They are allowed to spend camp send Campaign Style mailers at taxpayer expense. Thats to say nothing about the free media name recognition politicians naturally get just for being in office. The incumbent advantage creates a barrier to entry for everyday americans, without the connections to fund the campaign. It is the case for term limits. Elections may in theory be capable of dethroning incumbents, but that is not how it works in the real world. Congressional incumbents have a 98 reelection rate. That probably explains why congress looks more like a country club than a melting pot. It is predominantly made up of lawyers and politicians. Is disproportionately old, white, rich, and mail. Term limits would give us a legislature that better reflects the diversity of our society. The message longterm incumbents and young people like me seems to be, we want you just close enough to the political process to help us win, but dont get too close and take their jobs. The American People have lost confidence in this congress, and for good reason. We routinely see abuses of power. 18 months ago, it was revealed that members of congress were secretly using taxpayer money to settle lawsuits. Him for sexual harassment. You still havent disclosed how our money was spent in on whose behalf. So, term limits is a check on arrogance. It is a check on incumbency, and it is a check on power. It is way to restore political courage while bringing fresh faces and ideas to washington. As brent and franklin said, for the rule is to return among the people was not to degrade them, but to promote the progress kanye west said, no one man should have all the power. There is the dilemma we face. Over 80 of americans want term limits to happen. Donald trump and barack obama want it. It is being blocked purely by the selfinterest of congress. This were a trial, you all would have to recuse yourselves, because there is a colossal conflict of interest. If term limits past, you wont stay in the limelight forever. You wont be the center of attention. Some people might even stop laughing at your jokes. You will have to become ordinary citizens. And that is, my friends, the entire point. We are asking you to do what is right and listen to the people you represent. It is time to bring the gravy train into the station. End of the reign of career politicians, and give congress back to the people. Please support Senate Joint Resolution 1 for term limits. Thank you. Thank you. Professor powell. Chairman crews, Ranking Member verano and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in the findings of my Academic Research on term limits, which i began to study in 1995. My relevant Publications Co authors, Funding Sources and methods are detailed in my written comments. Between 1990 and 1995, 20 one states 21 states adopted term of us. 15 still have them today. The large number of states adopted term limits of the short period of time presented political scientist with rare opportunity to study the effects of a major institutional change. My findings are based on interviews with legislators, two National Surveys of legislators and hard data on their elections, constituencies and so forth. The surveys allowed us to compare four categories of legislators. Newcomers and oldtimers, each term limited and nonterminated term limited legislatures. The primary studies were conducted at two points in time. One after the adoption of term limits, but before implementation. That is before new legislators are actually turned out. And the other, after implementation. The legislative careerism is curtailed by term limits, was widely expected to alter the types of individuals who sought and one office. Notably, there is no support for term limits significantly increasing the proportion of citizen legislators, rather than careeroriented politicians. Term limit newcomers in the study after limitation were more likely to other elected prior office than nonterm limited newcomers. Legislators in states with term limits professed equally strong career ambitions, but to continue the political careers, they needed to run for other offices. For example, members of term limited lower chambers much more often said they are likely to run for state senate the members and nonterm limited chambers. Were term limits were expected by many to bring in new faces with fresh ideas. Yet, there were no differences in demographic composition between term limited newcomers another newcomers. We examined education, income, age, race, gender, ideology and ideological extremism. The adoption of term limits did have an immediate effect on legislative behavior. For example, it was argued that term limits would reduce the incentive to spend time building constituency support for reelection. We expected and we found that members in term limited chambers spent less time on keeping in touch with their constituents, on casework, and on port. These differences were more pronounced with legislators and chambers in the implementation stage of term limits where members were actually being termed out of office. There was however, no difference between term limited and nonterm limited chambers and time spent on campaigning and fundraising. The strongest findings involve institutional effects. When term limits are implemented in legislatures, governors, as well as bureaucrats and civil servants, gain considerable influence at the expense of legislatures. The fact that the effect is delayed until limits actually kick in, suggest the effect is a product of the removal of longterm incumbents, rather than changing incentives that arrive from putting term limits on the books. Within chambers, most of the decline in the power of the majority Party Leaders the cars , occurs immediately after adoption of the term of this. With only a modern decline after implementation. In contrast, the influence of Committee Chairs begin to decline when term limits are adopted, but the clients much more when they are implement it. These results will be consistent with the notion that the authority of speakers and majority leaders is based on control over rewards and sanctions to rankandfile legislators, whereas the influence of Committee Chairs is based on deference to the ecology, policy expertise. Term limits immediately undercut the Chamber Leaders authority by limiting expectations about reward and sanction. The Committee Chairs authority declines when the chair, the expert, leaves. Much of my recent research is focused on term limits as explanatory factors and projects and other topics. One project of the legislative influence of campaign contributions. Found that contributions and term limited legislatures are the same or perhaps slightly less influence than in nonterm limited legislatures. Another recent project has sought to understand how legislators come to agreement on difficult issues. In the interviews that i conducted, legislatures mentioned term limits is reducing the term limit they had to build the personal relationships with other legislators that facilitate reaching agreements. The effective institutional changes that term limits are complex and hard to fully anticipate in advance. Although, you are still unraveling the nuances of term limits, i think we have a very good understanding of the main effects. Here i will just outline my findings. I will be glad to discuss in some examples, any of them, particularly careers and campaign contributions. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Roche. I would like to thank the subcommittee for allowing me the time to talk a little bit about my experiences with term limits. My name is dr. Dave rauch and i am the professor of Political Science at west texas a m university in canyon, texas. The ideas and opinions expressed in the statement are mine alone, and not those of west texas a m, or the texas a m university system. I have been studying term limits for about 30 years. In august 1989, i started graduate school in Political Science. At the university of oklahoma. I was fortunate to be a graduate fellow at the carl albert Congressional Research and study center. That fall, oklahoma businessman, lloyd noble, began the process that led to oklahoma and acting the first state legislative term limit in september 1990. I studied term limits for so many years, that a graduate college regularly tells others that there should be term limits on people who study term limits. My dissertation looks at the first years of the state legislative term limit phenomenon. Noticed i did not say movement. Because i have a different perspective on what a movement is, versus a phenomena. I combined the careful reviews of news media and the states that enacted turn mitt term limits from 19901995 with interviews of those term limit leaders. I also published a number of Research Articles looking at the effects of term limits on electoral competition in oklahoma. While attending a Training Session in 1991, i learned about the San Mateo County board of supervisors in california. Voters in San Mateo County enacted term limits on the board of supervisors, which is a legislative executive body in 1980. By 1992, the first supervisor would be turned out of office. So, in an article, i report that the most significant effect of term limits in San Mateo County was that that supervisor who is about to be timed out spent a lot of time looking for a lot of other offices to look for, to run for. Research suggests that term limits have not had all the positive effects rejected by supporters, but also that they have not had all the negative consequences. So, being a good social scientist, comes word at the middle. I am either happy or sad in this case. Since 2000, i have been collecting data, from media reports and other public published Political Science research on both oklahoma and San Mateo County, to expand my research over that 3040 years worth of experience with term limits. By 2020, the San Mateo County board of supervisors will have conducted county business under term limits for 40 years. While the Oklahoma Legislature will have experienced term limits for 30 years. Such research should provide insights into the positive and negative effects of term limits on the legislative bodies. The enactment of term limits, as my colleague has already pointed out, has been a boon to research on state legislatures. Much of the new Research Examines any changes wrought by term limits by looking at the new relationships between legislatures and constituents, dynamics of legislative leadership, and the effects on legislative demographics. So, diversity. The most powerful research seeks to understand how term limits affect the work of legislatures with the other branches of state government. A lot of the changes found in california, we talked a little bit about that. There is a Research Project that found that while political careers continues, members of the Legislature Look for other offices, that the number of female minority representatives actually increased in the california legislature, but that the legislature was less likely to challenge the governor on his budget. Researchers examine more specific questions. In oklahoma, for example, oklahoma legislator seems to be serving longer after term limits were enacted than before term limits were enacted. But, it is such a small difference of about 1. 5 years two years in office. We also take a look at what is called the last term effect. What happens to a legislator, or in this case, a member of congress in the last term. And most of the research has found that there is really no significant difference in the activities. They are either not and acting, or not introducing as much legislation, or they are introducing less legislation and focusing on quality versus quantity. In the last term. Probably the best source, if youre looking for information, is a really thick book that looks specifically at the state of michigan. By Farwell Thompson and thompson, they actually looked at term limits for 13 years, interviewed about 460 members of the state legislature, and other observers, and they essentially found that the legislature has become less accessible to the executive branch. Which is very interesting. And i have also found that there is a bigger gap now between the legislature and the constituents. Political science needs to better understand how the term limits affected the status of term limits the state legislature. Does the length of limits make a difference . Its interesting how we seem to be kind of holding on six and 12 and maybe one term in each body might be an appropriate number. That might make it a much more accountable body. I would like to be able to determine that one term limit that best amplifies the positive effects of term limits , while maintaining the delicate balance between the three branches of government. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Burgott. German coos, Ranking Member around, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify this afternoon. My name is casey burgott and i am a senior government fellow at the archery institute. It is my job to identify, study, and write on potential reform Congress Might adopt to reassert itself as the first branch of government. One commonly advanced reform is limited by constitutional amendment, the number of terms member of congress cancer. It is my goal today to discuss the very real downsides that would result from the implementation of such term limits. First, believe me when i say, this is a bit of an uncomfortable position, because i understand, i completely understand why term limits are so incredibly popular with the american public. As you know better than most, congress is not very popular. We have got a list of reasons, things that you lose out to today. Voters feel unheard by the very officials they choose to be the voice. Instead, they see craven career politicians out for themselves. They feel drowned out by the moneyed special interests and the ways of doing business. They feel unrepresented by the representatives. Follows then that if we limit the number of terms a member cancer, perhaps we can stem the corruptive tides that are soon to inevitably creep into even the best intentioned lawmakers. They really do make sense on the surface. But, term limits may be great politics, but they are incredibly bad for governing. And that, therefore more likely to hamper congresss ability to do its job, and would exacerbate some of the very problems their adoption is intended to rectify. Allow me to turn to specifics. Opponents, proponents of term limits argue that there implementation would accomplish two primary objections. They would eliminate have little incentive to remain responsive to the constituents. Term limits, advocate suggest, would increase diversity in congress and return it to the Citizen Legislature many feel the framers intended. Second, they argued that they would decrease member reliance on specialinterest groups and bigmoney donors, since lawmakers would feel less compelled to court the support to remain in office. Experience with term limits at the state level, because i thought we have since it has never been adopted at the federal level, shows that neither of these objectives have been accomplished. When comparing the makeup of legislatures in term limited and nonterminal states researches, particularly dr. Powell to stairs down, found no meaningful differences across a host of variables including occupation, family income, age, race, agnes ethnicity, religious philosophic check or ticket. Term limited legislatures reveal equally a finding at odds with the assumption that term limits would produce officials willing to ditch politics and government and return to the private sector. More important, however, studies show that once electrical connection is severed, once we remove the mechanism of election, term limited legislatures, legislators are actually less, not more, concerned with the needs of the constituents and individual districts. Term limited lawmakers have been found to spend less time personally keeping in touch with the constituents, engage in less constituent service, exert less energy developing policy solutions, and are less likely to show up for votes. And importantly, less likely to engage in oversight. Turning to the 2nd point, term limits make legislator Less Beholden to special interests, we found that once term absorbent opted, lawmakers are more, not less, likely to divert outside actors of the chamber. Including lobbyists, bureaucrats, governors and even long serving legislative staff. This deference outside the chamber is wholly predictable. Lawmakers and staff do not have the time nor informational capacity to maine teen expertise in all the stuff there expected to. So we do what everyone does when we dont have the information. We google literary ask for help. In practice, they turned to sources such as well resourced lobbying shop, executive agencies who maintain that it has expertise. In either case, the legislature and is lawmakers become dependent on unelected outsiders for information, that often comes with a partisan agenda. Finally, term limits take away from voters fundamental rights to choose a representative. Term limits automatically kick out lawmakers without regard for how supportive they are by the constituents. Term limits have proven to be a brain drain on legislatures, decreasing the capacity to perform the duties as a coequal branch of government. Lawmaking is incredibly difficult, and a task for even the most seasoned lawmakers fully anticipate the unintended consequence of each mother take. It is unhelpful, and inaccurate to portray experience in a government as a negative rather than a public benefit. Just as in any other profession from teaching to accounting to surgery, we get better at the job the longer we do the job. Can we do Better Holding members accountable . Absolutely. We could. But neither congresss Job Performance of the publics dissatisfaction with work will be approved by automatically forcing out duly elected experience members. Thank you, and i look forward any questions you have. Thank you. Mr. Tom bolinas. Your organization, u. S. Term limits has been one of the major groups supporting term limits for Congress Since 1990s. Can you tell us about how your group got started and how it got involved in the term limits movement. . Term limits is basically the largest glatt Grass Roots Movement in the history of our country. This has never been a politician driven enterprise. In fact, politicians dont like term limits. Thats why i think it is such a good idea. But this is basically started in a small group of people across several states in the early 1990s. We are just dissatisfied with the quality of government that they were getting at the state level, and from congress. They had looked at president ial term limits, which were ratified into the constitution in 1951, and said, this has served our country well. This has struck a good balance between getting a fresh face in office, without allowing them to become too stale. So good they developed the concept for the display of term limits at the state level, and congressional term limits. We went to the ballot in 23 states. And it was passed in all 23 states with an average yes vote of 70 . Without any help from the Political Class. Took a that is basically how i got started. We formed an organization around this to continue promoting the effort, because largely, despite some of what you have heard today, term limits in the state that worked very well. States with term limits actually have the most competitive elections in the country, and it is the chief aim of term limits to make elections more competitive. The state with the tightest term limits, michigan, is the only state in the country with 100 of its elections contested. And as for the idea that political experience is more valuable and then real world experience, thats not what we see happening at the state level. Among ranking the states fiscal health, the states with term limited to be clustered toward the top, and the states run by career politicians are pretty much at the bottom. Live in florida. We were ranked number 1 in fiscal help for i think, three consecutive years. We just drop down to 3 on 4. Okay. We are beaten by two other term limits six. So, the result at the state level have really borne fruit, and i think would have an even bigger impact here in congress, because a Political Class is even more entrenched. One of the benefits of term limits, i believe, is increasing the diversity of representation. Back in 1995, edward h breen testified to this committee that term limits would increase the number and diversity of americans choosing to run for congress. And, dr. Rauch, you testified in particular that in california, term limits probably speeded up the increase in female and minority representation. And, your testimony also cites an article by samantha petty that finds that women are more likely to successfully run for the state legislature in states with term limits. Can you tell us a little bit more about that conclusion . I can. There is an interesting point to that conclusion. I would give you the actual percentages, but i didnt memorize them. But its interesting, she did find that in and we find is another elections as well. Typically an open seat election, if it is between a male candidate and a female candidate in an open seat election, the female candidate has a better chance of winning. That in the female running against an incumbent. When she found it was particularly interesting and maybe more relevant to our discussion today, is that it tended to favor Democratic Women versus republican women. That in an open seat election where republican woman was running against a democratic now, in an open seat, the democratic male was going to win. Toca its sort of a double edged sword. But definitely, it does show that in an open seat election, women tend to run and tends to win more often. I guess it is my understanding that dr. Pettys paper also says, this pattern, of women prevailing, running an prevailing more often, holds for both republican and democratic female candidates. I will have to go back and reread it. By the summary that i saw showed that, she took the article and midlog entry at the London School of economic. An interesting blog. Maybe she misspoke or miss summarized an article, which i cant believe. But she suggested that it does, and maybe she also with that additional elections, too. That it really favors more Democratic Women that it is republican women. Now, we also need to look to see how Many Republican women run. Might be the other question. Without objection, we will enter her full article into the record to be part of this Committee Hearings record. Mr. Tombolinas , and your experience, why is there such overwhelming Popular Support for term limits . And why does it cut across party lines . Why does it include, not just republicans, but independents and democrats . Dr. Rauch just testified that term limits produces more women and more minorities in office, why do you see such overwhelming support . I think we see such overwhelming and bipartisan support because the American People have largely concluded powerful incumbents in both parties are basically colluding against them to keep newcomers, to keep fresh faces and ideas, out of the political process. Think that is also leading to a lot of voter apathy in our country. Senator verona mentioned earlier, finding ways to get more people involved in politics. If elections are a foregone conclusion, and 98 of incumbents are going to get return to office every two years, i think it is a very fair question to ask, whats the point . When you have term limits, you are guaranteed a competitive, open seat election on a regular basis. Voters are guaranteed more options at the ballot box. It is more exciting, it is more in line with what our framers envisioned for how this country should really work. I also think theres record levels of frustration with washington dc. We are now in several decades of an experiment with professional politicians. And by any objective standard, it has failed. Things have gotten much worse here, not better. Thank you. Senator rona. Thank you. Let me ask you mr. Tombolinas. I noticed some other ways that we can encourage more voter participation, which you decided is a good thing. Do you support making voting easier in the United States, not harder . Absolutely, senator. You support making Voter Registration as simple as possible . I do. Depending on the details of that proposal. Assuming they are all citizens and all that. Do you support stopping unnecessary and discriminatory of otis . Absolutely. Do you support making it easier for people to vote early, or allow them to vote by mail . I would have to see the specifics of the proposal to give you an answer on that. Say, not all early voting proposals are created equal. Well, we will get into why all that. Toca which you condemn discriminatory voter id laws . I am admittedly not an expert in voter id laws. So, im not going to take a position on that right now. I would have to do more research into the topic. Term limits is more my daily week. But, it is your bailiwick that you would like to see more voters participating . Correct. Sucker would you condemn discriminatory voter id law for example that identifies a kind of ideas that blacks usually have that identifies the kind of ids that student has, then the voter id law would specifically require different kinds of ids for these two groups of voters . Would you condemn that . Senator, i unequivocally condemn all forms of discrimination against all groups. Sounds like you would condemn that kind of a voter id law. If that were indeed the law. Yes. That is indeed the concept underlying a lot of voter id laws. The voter id laws. Would you condemn partisan gerrymandering . Absolutely. Do you think we should enact a law to reverse the shall be hot if shelby calmly decision that eviscerated the Voting Rights act . Im not 100 familiar with that specific decision. It did eviscerate the Voting Rights act. Do you think we should Election Fraud . Such as what was on okay like . Senator, i think it debating the merits of a proposal for congressional term limits, while there may be other ideas out there that also have merit, that does not obviate the need to impose term limits on congress. 82 of americans want term limits on congress, as i believe that is the reason why we are today. But there are huge percentage of American People who also support a lot of other things that congress is not addressing. So, these are other suggestions and proposals that i would just like to have you on the record as to whether you supported or not. Do you support ensuring Election Security . Yes, senator. Four, lets see. Want asked professional powell. I asked mr. Tombolinas just now, i went daedalus. What are your thoughts on some of the other, more effective ways of achieving the goal of less corrupt, more transparent and more Responsive Government . And it could include the items i just asked mr. Tombolinas about. I think if we include the items that you asked him about, one of them, i would argue, too. I study campaignfinance for a long period of time. I, while interviewed republican and democratic individual is part of the about concerned about the rise of spending. I think that would be an additional one to add to. Whether or not to undo citizens united. I would agree with that. So, the list of things you would add on the dark money. And the unlimited amount of spending that ticket can now engage in . As a result of a couple of decisions . Mostly from citizens united. I interviewed one legislator term limited state. He was the leader of the senate in that state. Republican, quite conservative. And he said i believe in the first amendment. But we have to do something about independent spending. So that we go home to small towns, we live in small communities. Please the hurt our families and our friends. And it makes it very difficult to come back to congress and work with the other side that we know has orchestrated these acts. So, perhaps this can be another Relevant Committee could have a hearing on the corrupting impact of unlimited spending. One of the things that can happen with term limits is, that people have to run for other offices. I believe you said in term limited states, members were tim term limited sibley run for another Public Office. Is that what your Research Shows . Does very much. And i can read you a quote which i think kind of example of isis. In california, which we have discussed, which is a most professionalized legislature and more similar to the congress, it is been said, a lot of people thought term limits was going to bring in your basic citizen legislator was going to want to serve for a couple of terms and go back to whatever he was doing before. And that is just completely wrong. Most people walk in, the first walk in the door, they can tell you what senate seat they are ready for. Senate seat was expiring this you. Im going to go to congress and that you. People want to do this kind of stuff professionally dr. Were told that michigan is a very successful term of the state. Does this kind of revolving door for elected office, this cannot happen in michigan . It absolutely does pick up one of my colleagues alluded to a study that was done in michigan. And thompson. They studied it through 2010. So, they studied and a period when term limits have reached equilibrium arm ruptured. With a regardless office does not appear to slake legislators addition and legislators attracted to serve after term limits are more, not less, politically ambitious. This increase in political ambition is a must distinctive characteristic of the new breed of term limited legislators. Most of them do not aspire to be citizen legislators. On the contrary, they seek a career in politics, and they arrive at the state capital with plans on how to accomplish this. This fundamentally alters michigans legislator, making it into a springboard that elected representatives used to achieve the next rung of the ladder. There also is a concern on careers if the chairman will permit. We are out of time. Go ahead. The other thing that i think is a concern is that legislatures naturally are concerned about when they leave congress, what are they going to do . Are they going to have the money to send the kids to college to buy the retirement, and so forth. Many of them find that other careers are more lucrative than the ones of the hill before the first held elected office. And one of the interviews that we had was in california. Was the president of the california senate, president lockyer. He said before term limits, but the senators wouldve been happy to continue to serve in the center for the foreseeable future. Now, most statewide office. If you retire, but not many. One of the distressing things you see, this goes back to the assembly, not arch of her. But a chair of a powerful committee, a year ahead of departure due to term limits his meeting with the executives of that industry to try to secure employment for when the term ends. That kind of thing is bothersome. Emily asked, does that dictate fairly widespread . He said, no, but it has happened, mostly, probably they dont tell. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you, dr. Powell. Will note that problem youre highlighting was recently underscored by a report that showed of the exiting members of congress from the last congress, i believe in excess of 60 of them went to become lobbyists, that in turn prompted democratic freshman house member alexandria acacia cortez to tweet out to the world, that she favored a lifetime ban on former members of congress becoming lobbyists. To which i promptly retreated and said i agree. Lets Work Together. That had some interesting reactions in the twitter well. But i have long advocated a lifetime ban for members of congress becoming lobbyists for the same reason that i support term limits. Because both are ways to address the culture of corruption, bipartisan corruption washington. We highly agree. That is a fabulous and we are working, actually with representative acacia cortez. We will see if we have Bipartisan Legislation on that. That would be good. Bulimia asked mr. Tombolinas , a final question. So, the amendment i have introduced to impose congressional term limits, as i mentioned, it has 14 cosponsors. That i was looking down the list of cosponsors. Two things stand out. Number 1, every single one of those cosponsors was elected in 2010, or more recently. In other words, not a single cosponsor of the amendment was elected prior to 2010. And number 2, sadly, of the 14 cosponsors, none of them are democrats. Now, you have testified roughly 70 of democratic voters support term limits, and yet, zero Democratic Senators are supporting a constitutional term limits amendment. Why do you think it is that none of the senators elected before 2010 are willing to support this policy that the overwhelming majority of the American People want, and that none of the Democratic Senators are willing to support this policy that the overwhelming majority of democratic voters want . So, i cant go entirely into the motivations. But i can imagine for those that were elected before 2010, there is some feeling that they may be viewed as hypocrites if they were to cosponsor this legislation. And, that might be a mistaken understanding of the legislation itself. There are two forms of term limits out there. There is the selfpromoting, with several runs for congress and says, i will voluntarily step down over a certain number of terms. And then there are constitutional term limits. That is what sdr one, your amendment aims to tackle. Constitutional term limit would apply this term limit across the board to every member of congress. And there should really be no compunction i more Senior Members over supporting Something Like that. Because, they were elected under different system. They know seniority is the currency here in washington dc, and no one should begrudge them, using the currency to its fullest advantage. About what we are seeing is we want to dramatically overhaul the incentives in this place and create an atmosphere of competition and political courage that simply did not exist before. With respect to democrats, i dont know precisely why they are not supporting it to a greater extent . But i do say that term limits are very consistent with democratic ideals. Of making elections more fair. Right now, the cost of unseating a house incumbent is pegged at 2. 5 million by the center for responsive politics. If you have less than 1 million, to your name, your odds of winning a seat in congress over and encumbered our 2 in 293. So, speed just just repeat that lessens. If you have less than 1 million it, and your campaign account. Your odds of unseating house in, error 2 in 293. According to open Secrets Center for open politics. So can, to essentiallythe system. They have stacked the deck against outsiders. Congress is a career Political Class, primarily of lawyers and lifelong politicians. We are not getting the diversity that our country deserves. Where are the teachers serving in congress . Where are the doctors . Where are the firefighters . Where are the nurses . If we had term limits, we would get a true Citizen Legislature that reflects what our country looks like. See, the thing is, we share concerns about corruption under influence, all that. But i think a lot of democrats recognize that term limits will not do the job. In fact it is the democrats who support changing the Campaign Spending laws so it doesnt take 1 million, or the change, to prevent the kind of gerrymandering to prevent the kind of subtle Voter Suppression laws that are being enacted across the states. And a pretty fast clip. Especially after the shelby connick decision here got there are many ways to get at this concern that we all share. The thing is, term limits on the legislators will simply make the executives and others that much more powerful. Think that really goes to the balance of power, delicate balance of power that dr. Rush, rush talked about. Think the panel recognizes, i think we all recognize that. So, thank you mr. Chairman. I will say it is unfortunate that some of democrats are perfectly willing to focus on what our partisan election policy, such as for example, opposing photo id laws for voting. Again, the overwhelming majority of americans support photo id laws for voting. The u. S. Supreme court in a 63 decision upheld photo id laws for voting. Justice john paul stevens, one of the most renowned liberals on the case, writing in the crawford case, the indiana case, said the photo id laws protect the integrity of the democratic process. But unfortunately, todays National Democratic policies, Party Politics opposes common sense photo id laws that protect the rights of voters who often see their votes stolen or at risk of being stolen, including often minority voters, hispanic voters, africanamerican voters, can be the subject of unscrupulous voter fraud, and rather than focusing on an issue which is a pure democratic partisan issue, i do wish that some democrats in the senate were willing to actually take on career politicians in both parties. 70 of democratic voters want term limits. The American People are right on this, and i wish that our friends on the democratic side of the island the senate would listen to their own constituents. I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming. And testifying today. Your testimony was awful. And, the record will remain open in this matter for two weeks. Senators are asked to submit questions within the next two weeks to witnesses, and the witnesses are asked to promptly respond to those questions in writing. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. On thursday u. S. Border patrol people discussed the Defense Department deployment of military personnel to the u. S. Mexico border. She will be speaking before a Homeland Security subcommittee. Live coverage begins at 10 am eastern on cspan three