Congress Can Be Better Even Without Term Limits

Term limits face major barriers; other reforms could strengthen Congress

When then-Rep. Newt Gingrich called on Americans to “drain the swamp” in Washington, he wasn’t focused on the federal bureaucracy. He was looking in the mirror. As part of his 1994 “Contract for America,” Gingrich and Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives promised to impose term limits on himself and his colleagues in Congress.

The “Contract for America,” public dissatisfaction with the first two years of President Clinton’s Administration and the usual political churn of midterm elections all contributed to Republicans taking control of both the House and the Senate for for the first time in 40 years.

Gingrich delivered on his promise to hold a House vote on term limits within the first 100 days of the new Congress. In doing so, he underscored why congressional term limits are unlikely to ever become a reality. The House did get to a vote on the issue in February 1995, but it fell short. Later congressional efforts in the 1990s either didn’t pass or, in the Senate, couldn’t even make it to a final vote.

Efforts to impose term limits aren’t new and Gingrich’s proposals weren’t unique. Committee hearings on different approaches have been a routine feature of just about every Congress since at least the 1940s. Public opinion - as much as 80% of Americans with broad bipartisan agreement - favors term limits.

In the face of all this, why are some members of Congress still hanging around after four decades or more in office? There are three barriers to term limits, with two of them insurmountable in the near future.

The biggest barrier is the Constitution which defines the qualifications for service in Congress. Adding new criteria - mandatory retirement ages or limits on years of service - require a two-thirds vote in Congress and approval of 38 states.

The second barrier are the members themselves. They aren’t easily convinced to change the political system in which they were elected. Simply put, once elected, not many members are eager to limit their service in institutions that value seniority.

The third barrier is a practical one. The issues facing Congress are complex and take time to master. Imposing limits on tenure shifts a lot of the institutional knowledge and expertise to congressional staff. Many of the staff members, especially those who have invested careers in policy issues, have served for years and are the ones who best know why certain provisions of law exist and the challenges of change.

In addition, relationships among elected members are important to a functioning Congress. While “functioning Congress” may be an oxymoron, it could (and has been) worse without the personal connections that bridge partisan differences.

Public support for term limits is a reflection of dissatisfaction with Congress and a broad sense that the longer members serve the less accountable they are to their constituents. Instead, the concern is that they become what many ran against - insiders who serve the interests of a few.

Few would question that Congress has become largely dysfunctional, especially in an era of a President willing to challenge the limits of executive power and the Constitution itself. Last year saw the longest government shutdown in history because Congress could not agree on a budget and a historically absent House of Representatives. The House held legislative votes or meetings on only 87 days under Republican control, often using recesses as a way to avoid contentious issues.

There are solutions even if term limits aren’t among them. Among them are these four:

Reform the committee process. Much of the work of Congress is done in committee, yet committees are cumbersome and sometimes promote bases of power that become unassailable fiefdoms. One problem is the overlapping jurisdiction of committees. One of the worst examples is health policy. At least 12 Senate committees have influence over health-related issues, making it hard to craft the reforms desperately needed. Streamlining jurisdictions would facilitate not only greater efficiency, but better policy.

In addition, uniform limits on the tenure of committee chairs and the senior committee members of the minority party should be imposed. Republicans in the House and Senate have done this, Democrats haven’t. Rotating the chairs and ranking minority members reduces the consolidation of power and brings new ideas to the forefront.

Second, Congress needs better information on which to base its actions. The Office of Technology Assessment, eliminated by Gingrich in a false cost-saving move, is desperately needed. Members of Congress need objective and reliable information on issues related to science and technology, especially in this era of artificial intelligence and other rapid advances.

In addition, the Congressional Research Service, which has seen staff reductions, needs to be strengthened. This service also is an invaluable source of quality information on just about every topic a member requests.

Third, Congress needs to improve the budget process. Designing and approving a federal budget is the most important task of Congress, yet all appropriations bills haven’t been passed on time since 1977. A good start at reform would be to move from the current annual federal budget to a biannual process. That not only would give Congress more time to do its work and do it well, it would give greater predictability to agencies and their programs. In addition, Congress should impose automatic continuing resolutions if budgets haven’t been passed. These resolutions - stopgap funding measures - assure that government keeps operating even when partisan differences block a new spending bill. While the budget is a powerful and often valuable tool for the minority party, the disruptions and expense of government shutdowns too often aren’t worth the political gain. An automatic continuing resolution keeps government open; funding an agency at current levels gives the minority party some leverage by stopping budget increases.

Fourth, impose age limits. This, too, requires a constitutional amendment. However, with more and more members serving long past their time, it is more likely Congress could reach the two-thirds vote needed to send an amendment to the states.

Of course, the biggest reform is well within the reach of members of Congress right now: Just do their jobs. Stop ceding power to the executive branch or passing bad legislation with the hope courts will bail them out.

Voters also have power, especially in statewide Senate elections. Collaboration across partisan aisles should be an asset, not a disqualifying attribute of candidates. Most importantly, vote for candidates who recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government. It’s long past time it started acting like one.

(Photo: Kansas Reflector)