June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5685

from adding qualifications. But the

fact, as the dissent points out, is that

the Constitution is silent on the matter. And the 10th amendment could not

be more clear: ‘‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the

States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’’ The plain

language of the Constitution says that

unless the Constitution prohibits

states from adding qualifications about

who can represent them in Congress,

they should have the ability to do so.

Whether a particular qualification,

such as not having served more than

three terms in the U.S. House, is a

good idea or not is irrelevant.

If one accepts the majority opinion,

then all other state qualifications are

unconstitutional. These would include

requirements that Congressman must

live in the district that they represent,

or that they not be a convicted murderer. Justice Thomas points out the

absurdity of the situation where states

have the right to restrict those who

can vote in an election, but not the

right to say who can run when he says:

‘‘the people of each state must leave

open the possibility that they will

trust someone with their vote in Congress even though they do not trust

him with a vote in the election for Congress.’’

Actually, the Arkansas law would

allow Congressmen to serve more than

three terms, it just would require them

to be a write-in candidate. The majority ruling was that this disadvantages

a class of candidates, and holds that an

amendment with the purpose of handicapping a class of candidates is in violation of the Qualifications Clauses and

cannot stand. As the dissent again

points out, this would mean that one

could argue that the current congressional campaign finance system disadvantages challengers, and thus is unconstitutional. The same arguments

could be raised against any redistricting plans of the various states.

It has not been well-reported that the

implications of the majority opinion

could go well beyond term limits. As

other related issues come before a future Supreme Court, it is possible that

the U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton

decision will be overturned. Of course,

this would be well into the future. An

interesting question is, where do we go

from here?

I am committed to term limits, and

have directed the House Clerk to take

my name off the congressional roll

after six terms. I believe a majority of

Americans now realize that our government is going to be better led by a citizen legislature than by career politicians. The court decision means that

neither Congress nor the States can

impose term limits by statute. Unless

the decision is overturned, there must

be a constitutional amendment to

allow for term limits. While term limits supporters are often divided on the

exact constitutional language for term

limits, I expect them to agree on a

form which will be able to gather the

necessary two-thirds vote. Despite having a majority in the House in favor of

term limits, the vote was 61 short of

passing a constitutional amendment in

March. Should the people continue to

pressure the Congress a constitutional

amendment will be enacted.

Another option is the use of Article 5

to call for a constitutional convention.

While it is true that all 27 constitutional amendments have come through

the Congress, mounting a drive for a

convention would add to the pressure

on Congress to pass a term limit

amendment and would keep the movement on the front burner in each of the

States.

I believe strongly that the citizens of

each of our 50 States have the right to

choose how to govern themselves. The

people of any State should be able to

enact and enforce qualifications for

their representatives. Term limits address the broader issue of limiting the

growth of our leviathan government.

As George Mason said during the general debate on the ratifying of the constitution in 1778: ‘‘Nothing so strongly

impels a man to regard the interests of

his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people from whence he was taken.’’ Congress must not become a perpetual

body. It must be made up of citizen legislators who, in the words of Thomas

Jefferson, ‘‘might have in idea that

they were at a certain period to return

into the mass of people and become the

governed instead of the governors.’’

Term limits will accomplish this and

States deserve to have their 10th

amendment rights be recognized.

previous order of the House, the gentleThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

fwoman from Ohio [Ms. KAPTUR] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Ms. KAPTUR addressed the House.

Her remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Texas [Mr. FIELDS] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. FIELDS addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

IMPACTED IN FOREIGN AID BILL

IMMIGRATION LAW ADVERSELY

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Madam Speaker,

I take the floor to talk about a very serious promise that I think has been

broken. Early on, we heard a lot of people talking about how wonderful it was

that we were going to have open rules,

open rules when we discussed issues in

this Congress, and everybody said, oh,

that’s great, and finally we are going

to be able to discuss everything fully

and so forth.

Well, next week we are going to be

bringing the Armed Services Committee bill to the floor, and I know it is

now called the National Security Committee, but that bill comes to the floor.

I have served on that committee for 22

years, and we have always brought it

to the floor under an open rule. I hear

this time it is going to be closed. They

are going to narrow it down and it is

going to be closed.

Today we just ended the foreign affairs bill that has been on the floor. We

used to call it foreign aid. Now it has

got some other fancy title. It is basically foreign aid. But let me tell you, it

is under a very narrow, narrow, narrow

rule in which many of us are not going

to be able to discuss some very critical

issues in there.

The issue that I wanted to talk

about, and if we do not get to discuss

this with an amendment, I hope people

vote against this whole bill, is the portion of what we are doing to the immigration law. I do not even think it belongs in this bill, but we are severely

modifying the immigration law to

apply in a whole new way. Let me tell

you what we are doing.

Right now the immigration law says

you cannot emigrate to the United

States unless you prove that that law,

the laws of the land, are being discriminated in how they are applied

against you. There is a discriminatory

application against you because of

your beliefs, and, therefore, you are

not being treated equally.

Let’s take it into some neutral area

that many people won’t get as impassioned about. Let’s talk about conscription. If a person lives in a country

that has universal conscription and

you are upset about conscription and

do not believe in the draft, you cannot

emigrate to the United States on the

basis that you don’t believe in the

draft and you are living in a country

where there is a draft, so, therefore,

you have the right to come here.

You could come to the United States

if you had been out leading the movement against the draft and because of

that your country put you in jail or because of that your country did all sorts

of other discriminatory acts toward

you. Then you would be made a political refugee because you had been out

exercising your political rights in your

country and they had made a target of

you. That is how we have enforced the

law.

However, in this bill, we are changing

it vis-a`-vis population policy, and we

are saying that if a person does not

like the population policy of the country that they are in, they can then

come to the United States because

they feel that they are going to be discriminated against.

b 2100

Boy, is that a change. Boy, is that a

major change. And I think that because we do not understand the great