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

Subcommittee on the constitution , a hearing on accountability with senator jim demint and a panel of experts. They discuss whether term limits would be effective in government. This is about one hour 40 minutes. [gavel bangs] sen. Cruz good afternoon. I apologize we are late. We will now begin the hearing. Let me begin by thanking you all for attending, and thanking senator hirono for working with me and my staff to convene this hearing and bring these 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 can begin to fix what is broken here in washington politics. Before i introduce our first panel, i would like to explain why we organized todays hearing. In 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 is not hard to see why. Enmeshed in backroom deals and broken promises, our capital has too often become a political playground for the powerful and the wellconnected, 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 did not 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 hardworking americans typically winding up on the losing end. Every year, Congress Spends billions of dollars on giveaways for the wellconnected. Washington insiders get taxpayer money. Members of congress get reelected, and the system works for everyone except the American People. This kind of selfinterest builds on itself as members spend more and more time in office. In an age in which the partisan divide seemed intractable, it is remarkable that public support for congressional term limits remains strong across already party lines. In poll after poll, conducted over decades, americans who are republicans, who are democrats, who are independents, americans who are conservatives, who are liberals, who are moderates, who are men or women, who are angloamerican, or africanamerican, or hispanic, all support term limits by overwhelming margins. For example, a 2018 Mclaughlin Associates poll found that 82 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 African Americans support term limits. Indeed, the one group, it seems , in america that does not support term limits are career politicians here in washington. Everybody else recognizes the problem. A 2016 rasmussen poll showed much the same thing as did a 2013 gallup poll. These results have been consistent year after year. Ending that dynamic of congress enriching insiders and using those insiders to hold on to power favors Neither Party. It is not a problem of just republicans or just democrats. Restoring confidence and accountability in congress should not 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 . It is straightforward. Too many career politicians do not 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 politicians in washington today. At our founding, representatives left their homes, their farms, their businesses, they travelled to washington to represent their constituents. They served in congress for a time, but usually returned to their homes and their affairs. Leaders like George Washington, john adams, and James Madison reached the height of political power, and then relinquished it to return to private life. But today, members of congress are not doing that. And 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, who spent 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 end the phenomenon of career politicians, it is long past time to enact term limits for congress. I am 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 three twoyear terms. At this point, we currently have 14 cosponsors in the senate. It is my hope that this hearing today will help explain why we should come together, republicans and democrats, 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 i have 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 we have today, the two panels, will help move that discussion forward. With that, i recognize senator hirano for her Opening Statement. Sen. Hirono thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you for all 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 term limits will help solve the problems we have with corruption, cronyism, and accountability in congress. But there are easier and 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 strengthen voting, we should be working to ensure more americans are able to vote, by making voting easier in the United States, not harder. By making Voter Registration as simple as possible. By stopping unnecessary and discriminatory purging of voter rolls. By making it easier for people to vote early or allowing them to vote by mail. I would say that if the American People were asked whether they support the aforementioned points, probably, we would 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 i. D. Laws, partisan gerrymandering. , and we should enact a 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 colleagues that would require reporting of offers of foreign election interference, secure election systems, and require paper ballots. We do not need to artificially restrict voters choices. Instead, we should expand voting access and opportunities. The more eligible americans who vote in every election, the better. Full stop. Our concerns about corruption can be tackled by ethics rules and procedures. Let us make sure there is more 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 this country, or even appointed to high positions of trust, like the cabinet, 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 in a department making decisions about detaining immigrants come Homeland Security secretary john kelly, you should not be allowed to go through a revolving door and get paid a by a Corporation Building those detention facilities. Former members of congress should not have privileges if they use them to lobby clients. No wonder elected officials have problems with public trust. We do not police ourselves effectively. The final thing i would like to highlight is a mechanism for improving government that is right in our constitution, as the first of the bill of rights. I am talking about freedom of the press. If we want to make elected officials more accountable, we should all support the rights of a free press, because the matter how good voter turnout is, no matter how safe our election systems are, no matter how transparent members of congress are about our conflicts, as Justice Louis brandeis wrote , sunlight is the best disinfectant. Electric light the most policeman. As instead of calling the perfect the enemy of the people, we need to champion the role they play in our democracy and increase transparency. The more informed voters are, the better their choices will be, and the more responsive our become. So while i agree with senator cruz that congress, and owes our whole, owes our voters more than they are getting now, i dont agree term limits are the answer. Term limits have served to strengthen the executive branch at the expense of legislatures. They make 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. Sen. Cruz thank you, senator hirono. We will now introduce our first witness, the honorable jim demint, former senator from South Carolina, former chairman of the partnership institute, and a longterm friend to many of us on this committee. Senator demint served the American People in both houses of congress. From 1999 to 2005, he represented South Carolinas fourth district. In 2007 to 2015, he represented the state of South Carolina in the United States senate. , where he worked on health care , taxes, and entitlements. Among his many achievements, he led conservatives efforts to ban congressional earmarks, something 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, ultimately taking a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the senate, and said the constitution ought to be amended to include term limits. 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 also the founder of the conservative senators fund. Senator demint is the author of several books, including saving never saving america from economic collapse, the Great American awakening two years that changed america, and most recently falling in love with america again. Which debuted at number one on the Washington Post bestseller list. Senator demint, welcome. I would ask that you stand and be sworn in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony are about to give you before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Mr. Demint i do. Thank you, mr. Chairman, ranking member, former colleagues of the subcommittee. It is extremely gracious of you to invite me today, especially considering i will spend my time advocating for your unemployment. It is 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 members of the public and members of congress are divergent. But there are a few issues where the gap is as large as the issue of term limits. If you need a standing applause line, it is talk about term limits, and people will stand up and applaud. As, mr. Chairman, you already pointed out, somewhere between 75 to 80 of americans believe in term limits. Not only for senators, but they sure like the idea of judges and bureaucrats, 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 these are roughly the same arguments that delegates debated at the constitutional convention. It was george mason of virginia who argued that nothing is so essential to the preservation of a republican government as a periodic rotation of its representatives. For his part, rufus king of new york insisted that he who has proved himself to be most fit for an 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 and diverse as we are. Meanwhile, disqualifying unusually capable legislators from serving would be a definite loss our country. The philosophical argument about term limits can be a close call, as it was in 1787. Unlike our founders, however, we do not have to confine our debate to theoretical abstractions. We can draw on realworld experience, with our 230yearold system, and especially, its performance over the last few decades. The practical case for term limits, mr. Chairman, is no longer a close call. Have to speculate, as the founders did, that the prospect of a permanent tenure in Congress Might tempt the senators and representatives toward selfinterested, shortterm thinking. We know for a fact, especially in recent decades, when control of congress has been constantly up for grabs, this shortterm thinking has become congresss defining defect. For individual members, shortterm thinking warps incentives towards bringing home the bacon and fundraising, 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 careerist ambitions. And members quickly give up their 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 their 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 debate and amendment votes for the sole purpose of shielding senators from politically controversial votes, thereby denying the American Peoples right to an ccountable legislature. Members are told theyre not players and are cut off from the gravy train. Conscious burden 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 incentivizes members to prioritize the next election over the next generation. And partisanship over statesmanship. It realigns their interest away from the American People and towards the swamp. The consequences are around us, the national debt, the pork barrel programs to facilitate the reelection, the uninformed retitlement program that is hurling the nation into insolvency. Congress lack of overnight over the spreading bureaucracy, the power of special interest, especially the corrupt lure of post congressional career on k street for members who play ball. The total disappearance of the process, the breakdown of the legislative process especially in the senate. The mindless partisanship, 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. In washington, fundraising would become less important so 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 reform, health care, immigration and budget reform. By closing off avenues, term limits might introduce representatives to the appeal of doing something important for their constituents, for their country, and for themselves. The end result would be more accountable, a more accountable and statesmanlike and in time a more trusted and respected congress. Mr. Chairman, as i said before, our congress is on an unsustainable coarse. We do have the 22 trillion debt near annual deficits, 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 hoping to get the freedom to rock the boat to challenge the system to try to change this unsustainable course where one that we can actually build a better america. And im grateful for you for introducing it. Im very well aware of the arguments on both sides but when i came to congress i supported term limits in theory. Now i support it after seeing 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 and id entertain any questions if youd like. Chairman cruz thank you, chairman demint for your powerful testimony. Ill Say Something you said at the tail end there that 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 and seen it first hand, i support term limits a thousand times more. Youve served in both the house of representatives and the u. S. Senate, can you share from your own experience what serving in congress, why that led you to support term limits and why it underscored the need for a limit on the terms. Senator demint coming in as a businessman never being involved in politics the idea of citizen statesman, folks coming to washington and demonstrateing their constituents and coming back and living undered 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. I was told right away if i wanted to raise money in washington i need to disavow my pledge, 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 bankruptcy and 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 to be in leadership and i knew limiting my term and especially rocking the boat that none of those were going to come my way. I think it is true, my perspective was always different. I always said if youre going to run a race and you know its a hundred yards, you can give it your all and i did that in the house and senate. But if youre going out jogging for a ways you can do it for a long, long time and dont really reach a destination in the same way you did. So again, ive heard the arguments, mr. Chairman that well have a permanent staff, well have a permanent bureaucracy, that elections are the best term limits but we know the power of incumbency and we know whats happened to preserve the seniority system and its beyond what it was when i got here and the only way to limit terms is the way we did it for the president of the United States and thats to put it in the constitution. Chairman cruz in your testimony you put in observation and its my experience is risk aversion. Ive been at numerous town halls back home in texas where citizens will ask and theyll say do members of congress, do they believe anything . Are they just you know, do they believe anything when they first ran . What i usually share with folks is i say most people who run for congress they do so because they do believe in some principles on the democratic side, on the 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 dwarfs anything else and they find themselves a little bit like the wonderful movie series the godfather where in each of those movies is the story of the good son. Making decisions of each in which seems in its own perfectly rational. His father is going to be murdered but each of those small rationalizations lead him down the road to become a mass murderer. In much the same way i think elected members of Congress Make small concessions to, well, i want to do Something Big and balance the budget. Want to address the debt. Want to get reelected first. But its one after another and another they find, and i think its true on both sides of the aisle, you look at republicans and democrats that are afraid to work together, because the overwhelming objective is we must get reelected. Do those observations comport with what you saw when you served here and what you see as an informed observer today . Mr. Demint yes, they do but dont think each one of us want to suggest our colleagues are mass murderers. I dont want to associate with that and i know thats not what you meant. What i have observed is that everyone, republican and democrat comes here with good intentions. And a lot of bold ideas to change. But it usually comes to change the system. We find very quickly that theres no reward for changing something. Theres particularly no reward for cutting anything, eliminating any program or cutting spending p. All the rewards are cutting government, spending more money, creating more programs and protecting the status quo. Ive seen again that people come with a lot of good intentions but there are very few i could probably count them on one hand out of the more than 500 congressmen and senators who have been here more than 10 years who are still really fighting for those things they came for. And i think that should tell us something on its face that this place, this town, this swamp changes the whole alignment of what we come for and what we end up doing. Its just bigger than we are as individuals. Term limits would allow folks to keep their focus back home on what theyre going to do after congress. It would make sure that they did 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 we can do. So this is not a Silver Bullet but one that will fundamentally change incentives and aline what we do here with i think our founders vision of citizen statesman representing the American People. Mr. Cruz i might be obliged to say mo green was a friend of mine, ill take your friendly amendment, that at least the overwhelming majority of congress are not currently mass murderers. I note the chairman noted that members of congress are very risk averse and the only thing they care about is reelections and therefore are risk averse. 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 are people in congress who lost their elections reelections because they voted for the a. C. A. I would hardly call that risk averse, or when the Senate Passed the comprehensive Immigration Law act, which sadly the republican controlled house did not act upon, that was a huge risktaking move on the part of the senate. Or i have to say when we voted on judge cavanaugh to become a lifetime justice on the Supreme Court, you had three members of the senate who voted against him knowing full well that their reelection would be hurt and in fact they lost their elections. I hardly think that kind of broad statement does much good in my opinion. Now, senator, were you 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 . D then among the 1216th 116th congress the average term of senators is 610 years . Did you know that . R. Demint ms. Hirono the people are not staying as long as you postulate. I just put that in the record. Mr. Demint may i comment . Ms. Hirono are you disputing the members terms . In, mint folks come him like the tea party, lots of new people came in, or the 1994 the republican revolution in the house. But what happens is all these new people with bold ideas come in and all the committees are controlled by Senior Members who have been here 15 and 20 years. Thats what i found. All the changing Social Security, the things to fix medicare, the things day to do, balancing the budget. They were always thwarted by Senior Members on both parties on committees that were standing for the status quo. Ms. Hnchings irono i would say the tea party had a tremendous sway in the house because i was there. Let me move on. I think i said in your Opening Statements voters favor term limits for judges, did i hear you correctly . Mr. Demint yes, they do. We hirono do you think should have term limits for federal judges in Supreme Court . Mr. Demint we should debate, its not part of senator cruzs amendment but i know from talking to people around the country the lifetime appointment for journals is not a very popular idea. Ms. Hirono especially now because were packing the courts with a lot of judges who have very strong ideological perspective. You mentioned in other statements that corruption is related to seniority of elected officials. Is that just a feeling from your experience or is there data that reflects that connection between corruption and seniority . Mr. Demint i think theres a lot of evidence. We certainly have seen Senior Members of the committee particularly back in the earmark days. Ms. Hirono of course we no longer have earmarks. Mr. Demint it would not have happened if i had been term limiteded because i led the effort in the senate and very unpopular of Senior Members of both parties and k street. Ms. Hirono can you cite any studies or analysis that points to a connection between corruption and seniority because id like to read those studies. Mr. Demint there are a number of people who have been to jail for corruption and a lot of those are senior committees, particularly appropriators over the years and that data is readily available. Ms. Hirono i would have to look it up in google or something. Ok. Id really like us to i think all of us share the concern over corruption, of course, and theres a lot of that thats happening right now in front of our faces but be that as it may, im not so sure term limits is the answer. Im glad that you mentioned its not the Silver Bullet, its not the be all and end all. Speaking of studies, are you familiar with the academic literature like the work of one of our upcoming witnesses, linda paul, which shows term limits dont have the effect of cleaning up government or making it more effective or responsive . Mr. Demint im very familiar with it and have been a part of those studies looking at term limits at the state level and clearly evident that states like california have been able to game the system, while we see states like florida where theyve actually, because of term limits, a lot of positive reforms and education choice, pension reform, keeping their tax rate low, keeping their economies. Of course ive 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 at term limits at the state level and believe in it. But i think the real change would happen if we limited terms in washington. Ms. Hirono well hear from professor powell later, so 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 n fact would reduce mr. Demint i was here and seen the studies and been a part of a lot of them. My conclusion after serving is that term limits would drastically change the incentives and do a lot to reduce corruption and do a whole lot more to get people representing the good of the country. Which again i think the subject of term limits km come under the subtitle of whato do we have to lose . If we look where this country is right now, i cant 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. Ms. Hirono mr. Chairman, i realize about the time you spent. May i ask one more question . In my Opening Statement i cited 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 . Mr. Demint i think we should do everything we can to facilitate the voting of the american citizens. Mr. Cruz thank you, senator hirono. In response to risk aversion, senator hirono pointed to three examples she cited of congressional courage, the vote of the democratic majorities in favor of obamacare and the vote of the democratic majorities in favor of amnesty and the democrats who voted against the confirmation of Justice Brett kavanaugh. While those may be examples of courage, those are also examples 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 interest and views of their constituents, which is why the Obamacare Vote produced the republican takeover of the house of representatives in 20 10. It is why the amnesty vote helped produce the republican take over of the senate in 2014 and why the vote against Justice Cavanaugh retired several democratic members because in those instances the senators were voting against the views of their constituents. In this instance with term limits, the overwhelming majority of my constituents, of senator hironos assistants and everyone elses agree with term limits and we should have the courage to vote for our constituents. Ms. Hirono obviously we have a disagreement. There we go, what a democracy. Mr. Cruz senator sass. Mr. Sass thank for you your work on this topic and congratulations for your work on the earmark band, as has been reported, the republican conference voted last month to permanently ban earmarks. Mr. Demint i cant believe that. Mr. Sass in 2012, 2014, 2016 there was a earmark band and came back frankenstein like that the default in this congress there should be earmarks again and instead of banning them another two years i led the charge in our conference with an important assist from senator cruz trying to get that earmark ban to be made permanent but want to make sure you get lots of credit because you were one of the first people championing this. Mr. Demint thank you for following through. Mr. Sasse i think mr. Smith goes to washington had been a crappy movie if Jimmy Stewart had stayed around for a hundred years and cozied up to k street and done everything conceivably possible to keep his job here, yet theres no way you can tell the important story of someone coming to fight for something if one of their main calculuses, calculi, not sure of the latin, but one of the main inputs what they think of the question, will this be popular 12 months or 18 or 24 months from now as opposed is this the right thing to do for my kids and constituents kids and grandkids. We dont need a short term finger in the windism. And if you do that, if you drain the swamp you have to drive a lot of people who are the swamp protectors out of the swamp to go back home. What we have is a bunch of people who debt elected and decide its a oneway ticket and people are from where they from and run for office and once they get to washington buy a permanent home and eventually stop visiting the home they came from and start seeing that staying from washington forever is a part of their key identity and their purpose. One reason we never talked to them about reform is because its obviously the right thing to do and in the short term will be messy to admit the truth that politicians havent told the truth with the long term budget and we regularly overpromised. When you come clean to the American People about that, theres going to be a whole bunch of blood on the floor at first when you tell the truth about that. 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 short term political calculus leads everybody to say maybe after the next election . Mr. Demint thank you, senator. I recall after the 2010 elections a number of us wanted to balance the budget. And we picked the debt limit as a fight 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 in spending and it was a slowing of growth over a 10year period and economic incentives where the growth actually balanced the budget in 10 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 and balancing the budget, on what about the debt and the bailouts that the most resistance we had from balancing the budget over a 10year period, it was from all the Senior Members, particularly the appropriators in the senate, concluding and especially the republican leadership, it was such a good example of a wave of new people who came in fresh from the campaign trail where they made all these promises and commitments to people and came with vision and this 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 your expectation within weeks of getting here. And the nexus of power and reward is all from seniority, the fundraising gets more, the special interests get behind you and then you have more control of the communications and if you are trying to cut spending, like if i had to give you one thing, it would be weve got to balance the budget. We cant keep spending more than were bringing in. Cutting anything in washington has so much punnishment associated with it, every constituents of every program that no reasonable person is oing to keep doing that. Youre either going to go home or get unelected. We have 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 theyll be here for a short period and give it everything theyve got for their country and one way or another theyre going to go home. But if theyre fighting for a lifetime career theyll 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. Mr. Sasse could you unpack a little more the distinction you drew between california and florida because there are lots of thoughtful people who oppose term limit legislation, and one of the things they regularly say is that many state capitals have the example of term limits that were passed that empowered staff and lobbyists and didnt lead to legislative courage and reform and you drew a distinction in california where they havent worked and in florida where they have. Can you unpack why . Mr. Demint it would be a longer discussion but california does game the system. It is very controlled by one party of people who move in and out, that theyll move one thing toe another to another to an appointed position. And im sure there are lots of other people who explain it better than i. Ive been with legislators all over the country and a lot of them are under term limits. Go to an event in florida. Its not perfect and doesnt solve all the problems but theyre thinking whats best for the state now, what can i come now . Theyre also thinking how they can bump off some of you guys up here and graduate because theyre term limited at the state level. Whether thats healthy or not, im not sure. I do know up here we have it on some others. We gain that where they go to be chairman of another committee based on seniority. But the problems here are very different than the state and that we have particularly senators very large staff. Ive 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. We can do that. Thats not a problem that should keep us from doing something we know would create a more responsive legislate you are, a more responsive congress here. So again, ive heard the excuses and seen the analysis of the different states. Some do it well, some dont. The bottom line for me after serving here and looking at all the evidence and direct research as well as anecdotal is this is one of the most important reforms we could make. Mr. Cruz senator lee . Senator lee thank you, chairman demint, for being here. Ive known you a long time and admired you from afar before i became to know you as friend and colleague. I appreciate your message. It was something to contribute to st. Augustine when he went to christianity and said lord grant me virtue and chastity but not yet. Its always good 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 response to the argument for term limits and one of them is its not a panacea and wont solve every problem as if to suggest if we cant solve every problem with term limits we shouldnt try to solve this one. What can you tell us based on your experience about how individual members might behave differently if term limits were on the books and imposed by the constitutional amendment . Mr. Demint we talked a lot about it but 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 lead evership and the conference go down dramatically. It would surprise me. And so again, if you come up an 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 nearly as desirable of a committee to be on. But to have the seniority means you raise more money, all the lobbyists come to your fundraisers, that creates the ability of you to endure yourself to other members by raising money in your pack. All this creates a nexus of power that goes with seniority and that we see with corruption. Lucy with corruption, if i could interject one of my colleagues here headed me a list of 13 former Senior Members who have been sent to jail because of bribery or corruption this is the American Government. I would like to submit these names for the record if i could. , 13 here. I would like to submit these names for the record, if i could. Sen. Cruz without objection. Sen. Demint the evidence is is that seniority stops us from solving things and it allows people to come in and create this new program. \ sen. Demint this 230yearold document without objection. The evidence is everywhere that seniority protects the status quo. It stops us from solving huge problems. It is this in your he system that allows people to come in and create this new program, the only bipartisan consensus now in congress is when you create something new and spend more money. It pitted one faction against her, i think they probably did make the right decision when they decided initially not to put term limits into the original constitution. There are things that have changed since then, that the Founding Fathers didnt adequately take into account. One of them might have been the rise of the twoparty system. Another mightve been the excess of accumulation of power within washington. The transfer of his much power from the states to washington as has happened. 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 mightve missed . Sen. Demint a lot has changed. If we knew the conditions of those serving in the early congresses, it would not be necessary to limit terms. It was not fulltime. It was very little pay. There were no savings programs and a limited staff. Long travel to get here. It was certainly a sacrifice. Folks needed to have other jobs back home, farms or whatever, to make things work. There wasnt quite the danger. Now the allure here in washington is quite different. You can make it a fulltime career. Decent retirement and a postcongressional career that can be very lucrative. Lots of staff, again. Its a very different situation. The money in politics as you alluded to, senator lee, the power that has convened here in washington from all over the world. It is here because of the concentration of political power now. We have a concentration of economic and media power. All of that really comes back to the real powers in the seniority within these walls. We cant fix it with one fell swoop. We can change the incentives in a hurry. Thank you. One final question. You testified about how Public Opinion supports term limits 80 20. This is across racial lines, ethnic line party lines. , when you brought forward your resolution in support of term before the senate, it was voted down 75 24. Do you know of another issue on which theo while you views of congress are so wildly out of step . The American People support it and yet the senate voted down. You know of any other issues where the view was wildly out of step . Why is it that career politicians in both parties are defying the will of their constituents . Sen. Demint its a great question. Again, it is still a great issue to run on. 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 pacs were not going to give it to you. If you limit your term they dont want to invest someone whos not going to be there very long. Thank you. I appreciate your initiative on this issue. I hope it will get open and honest debate. We will call up the second panel and proceed immediately. While we are waiting for the second panel, you mentioned how many other issues to the American People support by a wide margin. Yes, they support gun legislation, they support abortion. We are not doing anything about those either. If you are going to make a statement, i will at least respond with the facts. The overwhelming of majority of amendments support the second amendment. When it comes to abortion, the current position of the modern democratic party, which supports unlimited abortion on demand, partialbirth abortion up until the moment of birth with taxpayer funding and no parental notification and consent, 9 of americans agree with the position. That is an extreme and out of step position. Sen. Hirono i disagree. There are facts that support why i disagree. I am pleased to introduce for witnesses for a second panel. Mr. Nick t. The executive director of the u. S. Term limits, one of the nations leading adversity groups in favor of term limits. U. S. Term limits launched the term limits convention, a campaign to obtain a constitutional amendment for term limits via a convention of the states. Hes a graduate of the university of connecticut and is currently residing in melbourne, florida with his family. Our second witness is a professor of Political Science at the university of rochester. She teaches courses on american politics. Her work has won prizes. Among her many publications, she has authored work related to the effects of term limits at the state level. The professor received her phd in american politics from the university of rochester. Our third witness is also a professor. He is a professor of Political Science at west texas a m university. He has conducted Extensive Research into term limits and the effects of term limits at the state level. He has also written or contributed to numerous books and published articles including the Texas Edition of the leading American Government textbook. The professor received his ba from the university of alaska at fairbanks and his ma from the university of oklahoma where he wrote his dissertation. Our final witness is mr. Casey burdock. Hes 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 while he served in the executive Branch Operation sections. He holds a ba in Political Science from Arizona State university, a masters in political management from George Washington university, and received his phd in Government Politics from the university of maryland where his dissertation focused on the impacts of congressional staff. Thank you. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to address this important issue. Imagine for a moment that you are an employer and you have problems with your employees. When you hired these employees, they promise they would do exactly what you asked of them. Once they got the job, they became a nightmare. They started using the job to line their pockets. They took the Company Credit card and racked up more debt than you can afford to pay back. They became obsessed with keeping their jobs and forgot to do their jobs. After all that failure, all that disappointment and all that incompetence, your employees came to you and said, we deserve a raise. If you are a reasonable person, that should make your blood boil. 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 larger than anything else because the framers of that document wanted to remind you at all times who is in charge. We the people. We are your employers. You have an obligation to listen to us. I come to you with a message from the American People. We demand term limits for members of congress. According to the most recent national polls, 82 of americans want term limits. That includes support from republicans, democrats, and independent voters. This is not a left or right issue. It is an american issue. Term limits could be the only issue with support from both President Trump and former president obama. There was a time 25 years ago when congress was debating this. Nearly every opponent of term limits had the same rebuttal. Experience. We need experience to do this job right. If only they will become such a policy expert that all her problems be solved. In hindsight, that was the worst predictions ever. The system is broken. Congress has given us 22 trillion in debt, the longest war in american history, a broken health care system, a tax code written by lobbyists, an explosion of money in politics. And a broken immigration system. Too few here have the courage to address these problems because the only focus is on getting reelected. That is why it comes as no surprise that congress has a 14 Approval Rating and 60 of americans would fire everything the member of congress if they could. Congress is less possible than traffic jams, root canals, and hemorrhoids. 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 congress claim elections are free and fair. They deploy every trick in the book to keep power. Incumbents get nine dollars and specialinterest money for every dollar that goes to a challenger. If incumbents are having difficulty raising money, not to worry. They are allowed to send Campaign Mailers at taxpayer expense. Along with the name recognition and Media Coverage they get by being in office. The incumbent advantage creates a barrier to entry for Everyday Americans without the connections to fund the campaign. Elections may in theory be capable of dethroning incumbents but that is and how it works in 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 predominately made of lawyers and politicians and disproportionately old, white, rich, male. Term limits would give us diversity of our society. The message incumbents send young people like me seems to be, we want you close enough to the political process to help us win but dont get too close and take our jobs. The American People have lost confidence in the congress. We see abuses of power routinely. 18 months ago, members of congress were secretly using taxpayer money to settle lawsuits , some for sexual harassment. They still havent disclosed how our money was spent. And on whose behalf. Term limits is a check on arrogance and power. Its a way to restore political courage while bringing fresh faces and ideas to washington. Ben franklin said, for the rulers to return among the people was not to degrade them but to promote them. As kanye west said, no one man should have all that power. Heres the dilemma we face. Over 80 of americans want term limits to happen. Donald trump and barack obama wanted. It is being blocked purely by the selfinterest of congress. If this was a trial, you would have to recuse yourself. There is a colossal conflict of interest. If term limits pass, you wont stay in the limelight forever. You wont be the center of content attention. Youll have to become ordinary citizens. That is 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 the reign of career politicians and give congress back to the people. Please support this joint resolution. Thank you. Distinct with members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the findings of my Academic Research on term limits which i began to study in 1995. My relative publications and methods are detailed in my written comments. Between 1990 and 1995, 21 states adopted legislative term limits and 15 still have them today. The large number of states that adopted term limits presented political scientists with a rare opportunity to study the effects of a major institutional change. My findings are based on interviews with legislators, to national surveys, and hard data on their elections and so forth. The surveys allowed us to compare four categories of legislators. Newcomers, oldtimers, each in term limited and nonterm limited legislatures. The primary studies were conducted at two points in time. One after the adoption of term limits but before implementation , and the other after its implementation. The legislative career is curtailed by term limits and was expected to alter the types of individuals who sought and one won 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 implementation were more likely to have held other elected prior office then were nonterm limited newcomers. Legislators in states with term limits possessed equally strong career ambitions. To continue their political they needed to run for other office. For example, members and lower chambers more often said they were likely to run for state senate. Term limits were similarly expected by many to bring a new phase fresh ideas. There were no differences in demographic opposition between term limited newcomers and other newcomers. We examined age, gender, race, economicdeology status. 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 found that members in term limited chamber spent less time on keeping in touch with their constituents on casework. These differences were more pronounced for legislators and chambers in the implementation stage of term limits where members are actually being termed out of office. There was no difference between term limited and nonterm limited chambers and time spent on campaigning and fundraising. The strongest findings involved institutional effects. When term limits are implemented in legislators, governors and bureaucrats gained considerable influence at the expense of legislatures. The fact that the effect is delayed until limits actually kick in suggests the effect is a product of the removal of longterm incumbents rather than changing incentives that arise from putting limits on the books. Within chambers, most of the decline in the power of majority Party Leaders occurs immediately after the adoption in term limits. Only a modest further decline after implementation. In contrast, the influence of Committee Chairs begins to decline when term limits are adopted but declines much more later when they are implemented. These results would be consistent with the notion that the authority of speakers and majority leaders is based on control over rewards and sanctions whereas the influence of Committee Chairs is based on deference to policy expertise. They undercut the Chamber Leaders authority by voiding expectations about future ability to reward and sanction. The Committee Chair authority declines when the chair, the expert, leaves. Was of my recent reacher has focused on term limits as explanatory factors on other topics. One project on the legislative influence of comping contributions found that term limited legislatures were the same or slightly less influence than in nonterm limited legislatures. Another project sought to understand how legislators come to agreements on difficult issues. In the interviews i conducted, legislatures mentioned term limits as reducing the time they had to build the personal relationships with others legislators that facilitate reaching agreements. The effects of institutional change is complex and hard to fully anticipate and advance. We are still unraveling the nuances of term limits. I think we have a good understanding of the main effects. Here i have outlined my findings. I would be glad to discuss with examples any of them in particularly careerism and campaign contributions. Thank you. I would like to thank the subcommittee for allowing me the time to talk a little bit about my experiences with term limits. Im a professor of Political Science at west texas a m university. The ideas and opinions expressed in the statement are mine alone and not those of west texas a m or the system. I have been studying term limits for about 30 years. In 1989, i was at the university of oklahoma. I was a graduate fellow at the Congressional Research center. That fall, an oklahoma businessman began to process oklahomas first state legislative term limits in september. I studied term limits for so many years that a graduate colleague regularly tells others that there should be term limits on people who study term limits. My dissertation looks at the first years of the phenomenon. I have a different perspective on what a movement is versus a phenomenon. I combined a careful view of the news media in states that enacted term limits 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. 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, a legislative executive body, in 1980. By 1992, the first supervisor would be turned out of office. I report that the most significant effect of term limits in San Mateo County was that that supervisor spent a lot of time looking for other offices to run for. My Research Suggests term limits have not had all the positive effects predicted by supporters but also that they have not had all the negative consequences. Being a good social scientist, i come squared on the middle. I am neither happy nor sad. Since 2000, i have been collecting data, media reports, and other published research on oklahoma and San Mateo County to expand my research over that 3040 years worth of experience with term limits. By 2020, the san mateo board of supervisors will have conducted county business under term limits for 40 years. While the Oklahoma Legislature would have experienced it for 30 years. It should provide insight into the positive and negative effects of term limits on legislative bodies. The enactment of term limits has been a boon to research on state legislatures. Much of the new Research Examines any changes brought by term limits by looking at the new relationship between legislatures and constituents, the 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 that have been found in california, there is a project that found that while political careerism continues, members of the Legislature Look for other offices. The number of female minority representatives increased in the California Legislature but the legislature was less likely to challenge the governor on his budget. Researchers examine more specific questions in oklahoma. Legislators seem to be serving longer after term limits were enacted than before. It is such a small difference. We also take a look at what is called the last term effect. What happens to a legislator or member of congress in their last term . Most research has found that there is no significant difference in the activities. They are either not enacting or introducing as much legislation or they are introducing less legislation and focusing on quality over quantity. Probably the best source if you are looking for information is a really thick book that look specifically at the state of michigan. They actually looked at term limits for 13 years, interviewed about 460 members of the state legislature, and they essentially found that the legislature is less accessible to the executive branch. That is very interesting. They have also found that there is a bigger gap now between the legislature in their constituents. Political science needs to better understand how term limits changes the status and work of state legislatures. Does the length of the limits make a difference . We seem to be holding onto six and 12 when maybe one term in each body might be an appropriate number. That might make it a more accountable body. I would like to be able to determine that one term limit that best amplifies the positive effects while maintaining the delicate balance between the three branches of government. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the invitation to testify this afternoon. I am a senior governance fellow at the R Street Institute where it is my job to identify, study, and right on potential reforms Congress Might adopt. To reassert itself as the first branch of government. One comment is limiting by constitutional amendment the number of terms members of congress can serve. It is my goal today to discuss the very real downsides that would result from the implementation of such term limits. Believe me when i say this is a bit of an uncomfortable position. I understand why term limits are so incredibly popular with the american public. As you know, congress isnt very popular. We have a list of things that you lose up to today. Voters feel unheard by the very officials they choose to be their voice. They see craven career politicians for themselves. They feel drowned out by the money and swampy ways of doing business, they feel unrepresented by the representatives. It follows that if we limit the number of terms a member can serve, we can stem the tides that are creeping into the best intentioned lawmakers. It makes sense on the surface. Term limits may be great politics but they are incredibly bad for governing. They are far more likely to hamper converses 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. Proponents argue that their implementation would accomplish two objectives, they suggest they would eliminate career politicians who have little incentive to remain responsive to their constituents. Term limits would increase diversity in congress and return it to the Citizen Legislature that the framers intended. Second, they argue they would decrease member reliance on specialinterest groups and bigmoney donors since lawmakers would feel less compelled to court their support. Experience at the state level since that is all we have, as it is never been adopted at the federal level, have shown us that neither of these objectives will be accomplished. When comparing the makeup of legislatures in term limited and not term limited states, researchers found no meaningful differences across a host of variables. Across occupation, family income, race, age, and ideology. Plus, term limited legislatures reveal it equally strong ambitions to remain in other elected offices. A finding at odds with the assumption that term limits would approve officials willing to ditch politics and return to the private sector. More important, studies show that once the electoral connection is severed, once we remove the mechanism of elections, term limited legislatures are actually less concerned with the needs of their constituents and individual districts. Term limited lawmakers have been found to spend less time keeping in touch with their constituents , engage in less service, exert less energy developing policy solutions, and are less likely to show up for votes. And, importantly, less likely to engage in oversight. Term limits make legislatures must boldin to specialinterest. Lawmakers are more likely to defer to outside at hers of the chamber actors of the tabor. Legislature. The difference outside the chamber is predictable. Lawmakers do not have the time or informational capacity to have expertise on all the issues for which they are responsible. They do what any of us would do, we google it, or ask someone else for help. In practice, they turn to sources such as lobbying shops and executive agencies who maintain that expertise. In either case, the legislature becomes dependent on unelected outsiders. Finally, term limits take away from voters a fundamental right to choose their representatives. They automatically kick out lawmakers without regard for how supported they are by their constituents. Term limits have proven to be a brain drain on legislatures, decreasing their capacity to perform the duties as a coequal branch of government. Lawmaking is incredibly difficult and a task for even the most experienced lawmaker. Cannot anticipate the unintendeds eight unintended consequences of laws they partake. It is unhelpful and inaccurate portray experience in government as a negative rather than a public benefit. Just as in any other profession, we get better at the job the longer we do the job. Could we do better at Holding Members accountable . Absolutely. Neither congress or the publics dissatisfaction will be printed improved by forcing out experience members. I look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you. Your organization has been one of the major groups supporting term limits for Congress Since the 1990s. Can you tell us about how your group got started and involved . Yeah. Term limits is the largest Grassroots Movement in the history of our country. This has never been a politician driven enterprise. Politicians dont like term limits, thats why i think its such a good idea. This was started in a small group of people across several states in the early 1990s. They were dissatisfied with the quality of government they were getting at the state level and from congress. They had looked at president ial term limits which were ratified in the constitution in 1951. They said, this has struck a good balance between getting a fresh face in Office Without allowing them to become too stale. They developed the concept for legislative term limits at the state level and congressional term limits. It went to the ballots in 23 states and was passed in all 23 states. Without any help from the Political Class. That is basically how it got started. We formed an organization around this to continue promoting the effort because despite some of what you have heard today, term limits in states have worked very well. States with term limits have the most competitive elections in the country, that is the chief aim. 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. As for the idea that political experience is more valuable than realworld experience, that is not what we see happening at the state level. Among ranking of states by Fiscal Health, the state with term limits are custard toward clustered towards the top. The states run by career politicians are at the bottom. I live in florida. We were ranked number one in Fiscal Health for three consecutive years. We just drop down to three or four but its ok. We were beaten by two other term limit states. The result of the state level have borne fruit. It would have an even bigger impact here in congress because the Political Class is even more entrenched. One of the benefits of term limits is increasing the diversity of representation. Back in 1995, edward h crane testified to this committee that term limits would increase the number and diversity of benefits of americans choosing to run for congress. You testified in particular that california, term limits probablys bed up the increase in female and minority representation. That is correct. Your testimony also cites an article by Samantha Petit 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. Its an interesting point to that conclusion. I would give you the actual percentages but i didnt memorize them. Its interesting. She found we find this and other elections as well. In an open seat election, if it is between a male candidate and female candidate, the female candidate has a better chance of winning. Then a female running against an incumbent. What she found that was particularly interesting and more relevant, it tended to favor Democratic Women. In an open seat election where the republican woman was running against democratic male, the democratic male was going to win. Its a doubleedged sword. It definitely shows that in an open seat election, women tend to run and win more often. I guess its my understanding that the paper also says, this pattern of women prevailing more often holds for both republican and democratic female candidates. I have to reread it. The summary i saw showed she took the article and made a blog entry. At the London School of economics, they have an interesting blog. Maybe she misspoke or miss summarized through an article. She suggested maybe she looked at additional elections. It really favors more Democratic Women than it does republican women. We need to look to see how Many Republican women run, that might be the other question. Without objection, we will enter her full article and the record. Into the record. Sure. In your experience, why is there such overwhelming Popular Support for term limits . Why does it cut across party why does it include not just republicans . They produce 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 that powerful incumbents in both parties are colluding against them to keep newcomers, fresh faces and ideas, out of the political process. It is also leading to a lot of voter apathy in our country. The senator 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 few years, its a 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 and in line with what our framers envisioned for how this country should really work. I think there is record levels of frustration with washington, d. C. We are in several decades of an experiment with professional politicians. By any objective standard, it has failed. Things have gotten worse here. Thank you. Thank you. Sen. Hirono let me ask you, i noted some other ways that we can encourage more Voter Participation which you just cited as a good thing. Do you support making voting easier in the United States . Absolutely. Sen. Hirono do you support making Voter Registration as simple as possible . I do, depending on the details of the proposal. Sen. Hirono you support stopping unnecessary purging of voters . Absolutely. Do you support making it easier for people to vote early i would have to see the specifics of the proposal. Not all early voting proposals are created equal. We will not get into why all of that. I just wanted to go down the list. Would you condemn discriminatory voter id laws . I am not an expert in voter id laws, so i am not going to take a position. I would have to do more research. Term limits are is my bailiwick. Sen. Hirono it is your bailiwick that you would like to see more voters. Would you contend a condemn a discriminator he voter id law that, for example, examines the ids that blacks and students have, and then the voter id law was specifically required different kinds of ids for these two groups of voters. Would you condemn that . I unequivocally condemn all times of discrimination. It sounds like you would condemn that kind of voter id law. If it were that kind of id law. That is the concept underlying a lot of the voter id laws. Would you condemn partisan gerrymandering. Absolutely. Do you think we should enact a law to reverse the Shelby County decision that eviscerated the Voting Rights act . I am not 100 familiar with that specific decision. It did eviscerate the voting rightas act. Do you think we should counter Election Fraud . In 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 to term limits on congress and that is the reason why we are here. Your there are a huge percentage of American People who are supporting things that congress is not addressing. These are other suggestions and proposals that i just like to have you on the record to whether you support it or not. Do you support ensuring Election Security . Yes. Let us see. Let us ask the professor. I went down a list, what are thoughts on effectively achieving a more transparent government . I think it would include the items that you asked him about, and one i would argue to, i studied campaignfinance for a long period of time. When i interviewed republican and democratic legislatures, they are concerned about the rise of independent spending. That would be additional one. Whether or not to undo citizens united, i would agree with that. To the list of things you would add, the problem with all of the dark money and unlimited amount of spending that candidates can now engage in as a result of a couple of decisions, recently citizens united. Very much so. I interviewed one legislator and in a term limited state. He was the leader of the senate in that state, a republican and quite conservative. He said i believe in the First Amendment but we have to do something about independent spending. He said we live in small communities, and these are ads that are uniformly negative and makes it difficult to come back to congress and work with the other side. Perhaps this committee, or 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, and in a lot of term limited states, members who are term limited simply run for another Public Office. Is that what your Research Shows . Yes. Our Research Shows that. I can read you something that exemplifies this. In california, the most professionalized legislature, an assemblyman said that you thought that term limits would bring in your basic legislature which would serve for a couple of terms and then go back to whatever he was doing, and that is wrong. Most people walk in and they can tell you what senate seat they are running for. They will go to congress in this year, and people who want to do this are professionally oriented. We are told that michigan is a successful term limits state, does this kind of revolving door for elected office, does that happen in michigan . It does. One of my colleagues did a study they studied it through 20 20, so they did a period where it was at equilibrium. They appeared that a 10 year does not state ambition and and legislators that serve after term limits are not sated. Most of them do not aspire to be citizen legislators. They seek a career in politics and they arrive in the state capital or plans to accomplish michigans Legislature Making a springboard. They seek a career in politics. This fundamentally alters the legislature. Making it the next rung in a ladder. There was also a concern on careers about other kinds. If the chairman will permit, because we are out of time. Go ahead. The other thing that is a concern is that legislators are naturally concerned about when they leave congress, what are they going to do how are they going to earn money and so forth. Many of them find other careers are more lucrative than the one that they held before. They first held elective office. One of the interviews that we had was in california and the president of the california senate. He said before term limits, the bulk of senators wouldve been happy to serve until the foreseeable future. Now, many look at statewide office, a few retire, but not many. Some lobby or other things. One of the distressing things that i want to share, and this goes back to the assembly, a chair of a powerful committee year and a half after his departure is meeting with the executives of that industry to try and secure employment for when his term ends. That is bothersome and we asked is that something widespread . He says no, that if it has happened do not tell. Thank you. I will note the problem that you are highlighting was recently underscored by a report that showed that of the exiting members of congress, an excess of 60 of them went to become lobbyists that in turn prompted democratic freshman house member alexandria oh casio cortez she said that she wanted a ban on former lobbyists on former congressman to become lobbyists. I agreed and i long advocated a lifetime ban for members to become lobbyists for the same reason i support term limits. Both are ways to address the culture of bipartisan corruption in washington. We finally agree. This is a fabulous way to end this hearing. We are working with the representative and we will see if we have Bipartisan Legislation on that. Let me ask a final question. So, the amendment introduced to impose congressional term limits has 14 cosponsors. I was looking down the list of cosponsors, two things stand out. Number one, every single one of every those cosponsors was elected in 2010 or more recently. In other words, not a single cosponsor was elected prior to 2010. Sadly, of the 14 cosponsors, none of them are democrats. You have testified roughly 70 of democratic voters support term limits, and 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 why are the Democratic Senators not willing to support this policy that a majority of voters want. I cannot go entirely into their motivations. I can imagine those elected before 2010, there is a feeling that they may be viewed as hypocrites if they were to cosponsor, and that might be a mistaken understanding of the legislation itself. There are two forms of term limits. There is the self term limit when someone runs for congress and says i will voluntarily step down over a certain number of terms. There are constitutional term limits, that is what sjr one aims to tackle. A constitutional term limit will apply this across the board to every member of congress, and there should be no compunction among more Senior Members over supporting Something Like that, because they were elected under a different system. They know seniority is the currency in washington, d. C. What we are saying is that we want to overhaul the incentives and create an atmosphere of competition and political courage that did not exist before. With respect to democrats, i do not know precisely why they are not supporting it to a greater extent, but i do say that term limits are 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 are 2 293. If you have less than 1 million in your campaign account, your odds of unseating a house incumbent are two in 293. Incumbents have rigged the system, they have stacked the deck against outsiders. Congress is a career Political Class, primarily of lawyers and lifelong politicians, and we are not getting the diversity that our country deserves. We are the teachers . Serving in congress where are the doctors, the firefighters, the nurses . If we had term limits we would get a true citizen legislator that reflects what our country looks like. The thing is, we share concerns about corruption, undue influence and all of that. I think that a lot of democrats recognize that term limits will not do the job, and it is the democrats that support changing the Campaign Spending laws so it does not take 1 million or to change and prevent the kind of gerrymandering, to prevent the Voter Suppression laws that are being enacted across the states in a fast clip, especially after the Shelby County decision. There are many ways to get at this concern. The thing is that term limits in the Legislative Assembly makes the executive and others more powerful. That goes to the balance of power that dr. Ross talked about and the panelist recognized. We all recognize that. Thank you. It is unfortunate that the Senate Democrats are perfectly willing to focus on what our partisan election policies, such as opposing photo id laws for voting, again the overwhelming majority of americans support photo id laws. The the u. S. Supreme court upheld indianas photo id laws. Justice John Paul Stevens writing in the case said that those photo id laws protect the integrity of the democratic process, but unfortunately, todays National Democratic Party Politics opposes common sense photo id laws that protect the rights of voters who often including minority voters, hispanic voters, africanamerican voters who 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 aisle on the senate would listen to their own constituents. I could say more, but that is it. I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming and testifying. Your testimony was helpful. The record will remain open in this matter for two weeks. Any senators are asked to submit questions within the next two weeks to witnesses, and witnesses are asked to promptly respond in writing. With that, this hearing is adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] conversations,ng indiscernible] [photos] [meeting wrap up] hearing]ubcommittee washingtonspans journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Anding up, elaina tree jonathan kumari preview the week in washington. Then gary lott, former Congress Secretary and ambassador to china, discusses his role with the Usmca Coalition and current u. S. Trade policy. Be sure to watch washington journal, live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern this morning. Join the discussion. Announcer tonight on the communicators, georgetown universitys cam newport questions the values of being digitally connected all the time in his book digital minimalism. Its like loneliness with the drive toward sociology. Social media can hijack that drive and give you the same idea of being social and talking to people, but all the while you are missing out on the deep connections that drive is supposed to push us toward. Same thing with boredom. Why do we have such a strong driver boredom . Usedom is what push ues towards energy conservation, but now we can subvert that drive with a glance at a phone. Announcer watch the communicators, tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan2. There has been discussion about an appearance before congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress. Announcer former special Counsel Robert Mueller is set to appear before two committees of congress on wednesday, july 17. At 9 00 a. M. Eastern he gives testimony to the house judiciary committee, then later will take questions from the house intelligence committee, both open sessions. His report into russian interference in the 2016 election will air live on cspan3, online at cspan. Org, or on the free cspan radio app