Debbie Dingell: “if Members believe in term limits, this is the amendment for them. Our existing system of term limits works splendidly.…”

“if Members believe in term limits, this is the amendment for them. Our existing system of term limits works splendidly. They are called elections and have resulted in a 75-percent turnover since 1990. With the Committee on the Judiciary reporting House Joint Resolution 2 without recommendation, it is clear that there is no consensus as to how we should amend the Constitution, but a number of people, inside and outside the Congress, are in a desperate rush to see that such is done. The House, under their fiat, shall amend the Constitution, do so quickly, without regard to the wide differences which exist amongst even the supporters of term limits. There is a gigantic quibble taking place amongst the traditional supporters of term limits. They cannot decide whether it should be 6, 8, or 12 years for Members of the House. Should it be uniform amongst the States, or should the States choose for themselves? Should it include partial terms? Most importantly, should term limits count the service of those who have already served in Congress? I would think that we should count current and past service. That is why I have offered a bipartisan amendment with my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. I want to salute him and commend him as not only a loyal friend, but as a vigorous and able proponent of this amendment.”