John Conyers: “we have now come to a very curious part in the proceedings for today. All the term limits have been voted down…”

“we have now come to a very curious part in the proceedings for today. All the term limits have been voted down overwhelmingly, and now this one is now presented by the Dean of the House, and we are told now that if Members are for term limits, then vote this one down too. The gentleman says, this one should go down because it is retroactive, but if I heard Chairman Dingell correctly, he said that it took effect immediately and is not retroactive. So I think that we should get this terminology straight now. Now, why is this amendment derailing to the process of the people that support term limits? Can somebody explain that to me? That because the Dingell amendment suggests that it take effect immediately, that that is thought to be in bad faith? Why? Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the reason that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] suggests that this is a derailing amendment is that many of the people who are supporting the base amendment, their time will have expired. Is that the reason we are accusing this amendment as being in bad faith? I do not quite follow this. This amendment is, I think, issued in good faith. The only difference is that term limits would begin immediately, and not prospectively. I urge the Members' careful thinking and consideration.”