Major Overhaul

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any question that, if you go anywhere in this country, the American people believe that this town, Washington, and this institution in particular need a major overhaul.

The Founding Fathers conceived of a system in which individual Americans, individual citizens would stand for election and they would go up as representatives of the people, but they were no better than the people. They didn't live under different rules than the rest of the people. They were not part of a ruling class, but, really, part of a servant culture. That was the idea.

Well, we have come a long way. Washington, D.C., is really the bane of the existence for many, many people in our society. It hinders our economy. You have people here who engage in self-dealing. It is not acting consistently with how this system was envisioned.

So there are a lot of things I would like to do:

I think Congress needs to be forced to live under all the laws they pass and enact for other people.

I think you need to get rid of a lot of the perks that Members of Congress get, including pensions for Members of Congress.

But I think if there was one thing that, I think, really cries out for reform, it is that we need to have term limits for Members of Congress. I don't think there is any way you are ever going to be able to overhaul this culture unless we do that.

There was a time when people would get elected and the Founders didn't think anyone would want to be here that long. You would go, you would serve, then you would go back and live under the laws that you passed and continue your pursuits as a citizen. Well, somewhere along the line, that really changed. Then people come in, and it is almost like that is the main thing that they focus on: just staying here, sometimes in perpetuity. People have served 40, 50 years, and I don't think that that has turned out well for our country.

I think if you had term limits, I think you would really open up the process for new blood. I think people would come in here with a reformer spirit, new ideas, and really be part of a reform movement in Washington, D.C.

It is often said: Well, gee, term limits. But the American people get their choice. They get to vote in the election. The fact of the matter is, the way that our electoral system works, millions and millions of Americans have no functional choice simply because maybe their district is only going to elect someone from one party. Maybe you have the power of incumbency that just makes it so that challengers are never going to be able to get traction.

The whole campaign finance system is orchestrated to benefit incumbents, so we don't really just have where the American people have a choice. I think you have a structured choice, which typically leads to only one outcome. So I am not really somebody that thinks that this is all just that the American people are so happy that people are getting returned here all the time.

Another, I think, objection that some people said for term limits is that: Well, gee, if you term-limit people, you have new people in who don't necessarily know how the system works. It is just going to be all the staff that are going to run it or the lobbyists that are going to run it.

I have got news for you. That is pretty much what happens already. I mean, a lot of these omnibus bills, those get done by staff behind closed doors. Staff wields a lot of power on these committees. And these are not elected individuals. Many of them work hard. I respect a lot of them, but they are exercising, in many ways, authority that should be exercised by the Members, themselves. So I think that problem is real, but I think it is already here.

I think if you had new people coming in, I think a lot of those people would probably want to bring in some of their own staff that would be more reflective of their ideas and principles rather than rely on people that have been here a long time who really become accustomed to a system that is not working very well.

I am proud to have cosponsored the bill to enact term limits on Members of the House and Members of the Senate. We do three terms for the House, and two terms for the Senate. So if someone wants to serve in the House then serve in the Senate, they could serve 18 years. That is a long time, and I think you would be able to really do some good things during that period.

I think what it does is it really shifts the focus of somebody that comes here, because right now, if you get elected to the House, you are on the low end of the pecking order in terms of seniority. I mean, you almost have to just sit around here for 10, 15, 20 years to be in a position where you could really make a huge difference. I think what that does is that creates a culture in which people want to stay here, and that is kind of the main thing that happens once you get here.

I think, if you had term limits, the main thing that people would be thinking about is: Okay. You know you are term-limited. Your time is limited. Let's make the most of that. I think you would see a lot of people really, really perform much better. You would have people who could come in as freshmen and have more of an impact because the system wouldn't be dominated by seniority. There would be less favoritism, less backroom dealing. So I think it is a very, very positive reform.

We have been voting on random things here lately. I think it would be great if we could come here and offer some reforms to the system, constitutional reforms, like term limits, like a balanced budget amendment, like an amendment making Congress live under the laws that everybody else does. I think that would be a breath of fresh air for the American people.

Here is the thing. We talk about how we have the division and the rancor in our politics, and even in this institution; but if you look, term limits is something that, regardless of party, regardless of ideology, regardless of age, regardless of gender, regardless of race, Americans support in overwhelming numbers.

So I think that is an example of where the American people are actually very united for this. But when you have the governing class in Washington, that is where the divisions are, because many people don't want to see those types of reforms here.

But there is agreement throughout American society, and so if we want to start having a more unified country, we should be listening to the American people. When they are speaking loudly and consistently over 20, 25 years that term limits is something they want, we should heed that call, and we should be voting on that, and we should enact it, passing it out of the House, passing it out of the Senate, and then sending it to the States for ratification. What a win-win it would be, both for this institution, to show the American people we are listening, and then, obviously, it would be a very positive reform to have enacted.

I am really happy that, as new people come in, that they have the reformer's spirit. One of the guys who just got elected this last year--it is pretty clear when people get up here whether they are in it for the right reasons or not, and I think there are probably few people in the whole House who have been more dedicated to reform and making this institution serve the American people rather than rule over the American people. It is a great honor for me to be able to yield to my friend from Iowa (Mr. Blum), the chairman of the House Term Limits Caucus.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Iowa.

The thing is that you bring up a good point. It is very difficult to get people to want to term-limit themselves. So you and I are on a bill together that tries to be reasonable about it and say: Look, you know, we are willing to compromise to get term limits. You have Members who have been here for 12, 14 years and they are trying to put themselves in a position for a chairmanship, whatever, and they joined under certain rules, they kind of played the game, and they are preparing for maybe this to be the pinnacle of their career. I get why someone in that situation would not want to do it.

Our proposal says: Okay. Let's do term limits, but then we will phase it in as new Members come. So that is a kind of a gradual term limit enactment, and within a short while you would have term limits across the board. I mean, that is something that is a reasonable compromise to deal with some of the Members that have misgivings.

I think my friend from Iowa points out, I mean, if this were something that were to be done via Article V of the Constitution and submitted through the States around Congress, that would be enacted in a New York minute. I mean, that will sail through every State legislature without question, and you would end up having term limits.

So I think there are two different routes to take, but I think knowing that there is a desire for this, I think it would be good for this institution to say: Okay. We hear you. Let's debate it; let's put everyone on record. Then the American people can hold people accountable accordingly.

That is really, I think, what is frustrating. It would be one thing if term limits just failed every year, but, really, it gets bottled up every year because people don't want to be on record against term limits. I think that those days need to be over.

I ask my friend from Iowa, as you go around your district--you have Republicans, Democrats; you have a very politically diverse district--I mean, is there anybody who is out there saying don't do term limits?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSANTIS. I think that, if we were to approach it and say that we need to do term limits, we have to make sure Congress lives under the same rules, no special treatment under ObamaCare, none of that, let's eliminate the pensions for Congress--and the thing is you brought up people being lobbyists after they are in Congress.

If you did term limits, guess what. Then you are going to increase the supply of former Members of Congress. So being a lobbyist wouldn't be as lucrative because there would be a lot more people who are out there.

I think actually more people would say: Maybe I will go back to my home State and start working in business there and maybe have to come to terms with some of the laws that I imposed on the private sector and see how that works.

So I think it would be good for the performance in office, but I also think, as Members left office, it probably would drive more people to the actual private sector rather than being inside the Beltway because you will just have too many former Members and I don't think the pay will be as lucrative.

Right now, I don't know if this is accurate, but I have seen statistics where it is upwards of 80 percent of people who serve in the Congress go on to be lobbyists in Washington. So you understand the system, then you go out and are lobbying to grease the skids in that system. That is not the way I think that we want this system to be operating.

So let me ask you this: In terms of getting a vote, what do you think we need to be doing to impress upon other colleagues so that we can start to develop some momentum to try to get a vote on this?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSANTIS. It is interesting with the seniority discussion. I was in the Navy. In the military, your time in service matters for pay purposes and other, but along the line you have to actually promote. You have to earn a promotion.

So there will be some people who are commanders, O-5s, who have been in for--I don't know--I guess you could probably get that after 12 or 13 years. And then there are some people who are lieutenant commanders, O-4, who have been in 20 years.

Well, if you have been in 20, you have more seniority in the sense that you have been there longer, but the person who achieved the higher rank through merit is superior to you in the military chain of command. I think the problem with the way the congressional system operates is it is purely based on years staying here.

Some of the best Members who have ever served here have served for 30, 35 years. So this is not uniform. But I think, if you compared the good that those Members have done with the negatives of all the other folks who have just made this their fiefdom, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.

I think that Congressman Blum is right. Ultimately, the American people need to force this issue. Part of it is calling the offices. I review the phone calls every day, too.

I think one of the most effective things is in a public forum to just pointblank ask a Member of Congress if they will vote for Salmon's bill or Ron DeSantis' term limit bill and put them on the Record.

The more people that are on the Record as for it, it makes it easier for us to then take the case to the leadership and say that we need to do this.

I think it would be a breath of fresh air. I think people are so frustrated and so sick of the same old games being played in Washington that, if we started coming out with some of these reforms, leading with term limits, I think people would be reading the newspaper and shaking their heads and saying: Really? These guys are finally getting it.

Really, this is something that, if you take the long view when you are doing the right thing like that, then voters will have more confidence in your views on other things.

So maybe you are interested in tax reform. Maybe you are interested in welfare reform. Guess what. You are doing term limits. You are doing those things. I bet you a lot of voters would be less cynical about what you are trying to do on a whole range of issues.

So I think it would be a win-win both in terms of structural reform, but also potential policy reforms down the line.

Let me ask my friend from Iowa: Is there anything else you want to add to the discussion? I really appreciate your time. I think it has been worthwhile. I think we need to keep fighting the good fight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSANTIS. I appreciate it. In your bill, when you said, hey, balance the budget or else face a pay cut, I signed up on that immediately. I think that is a great idea.

We need to have personal skin in the game because what happens is, when you are here in Washington, particularly dealing with spending and debt, it is a lot easier politically for most Members to just put it off on the next generation.

These are people that can't vote you out of office. They are not going to call your office and complain about it. So it is usually the path of least resistance to do that.

So there is not a lot of immediate skin in the game short of us eventually having a debt crisis. Obviously, we don't want it to come to that. We want to make responsible decisions now.

So I applaud you for that. I thought that was a very thoughtful reform. I am happy to be signed up with you. Term limits, as part of a larger government reform package, I think would be a home run. I look forward to working with you on it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source