TX Democrat Stenholm Favors Four-Year Terms for U.S. House

Lubbock, TX, Avalanche-Journal ^ | 07-25-03 | AP

[Theodore R.]

Stenholm tries to garner support for four-year terms in the House

WASHINGTON (AP) — Although he may not be in Congress when it happens, Rep. Charles Stenholm is trying to rally colleagues and voters to support extending terms for House members from two to four years.

Stenholm, D-Stamford, says elections have become too time consuming and too expensive and are leaving little time for members of Congress to do legislative work. He said instead of being in committee hearings, members are in party political offices "dialing for dollars."

He is joined in pushing for the change — which would amend the Constitution — by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.

"We all feel caught in an endless campaign cycle," Stenholm said.

Stenholm, a 13-term congressman, survived a close race last year with 51 percent of the vote and is running for re-election in 2004. But he says longevity is not what he's after.

Bartlett said the two-year cycle worked early in America's history.

He said he has signed onto the proposal because "money is poisoning the system" and four-year terms would cut campaigning and fund raising in half.

Even if the idea seems far-fetched, he and Stenholm plan to introduce a bill to at least start a debate on the issue.

"This amendment would mean that I and my colleagues at least for two years of our time, two years of every four, could focus on what's best for the country, not what's going to get me re-elected," said Bartlett, who is in his sixth term.

Defending against suggestions that the proposal is intended to keep them in office longer, both lawmakers said amending the Constitution is such a long process, they may have left Congress when it finally happens.

A constitutional amendment requires approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Under the proposal, the first year Congress could be affected would be 2012.

"Those who would say this is somehow going to give me or Roscoe an advantage next year are totally, totally misrepresenting the facts of the issue," Stenholm said.

To improve its chances of Senate passage, the measure would stipulate that House members who run for Senate automatically lose their House seat.

[Theodore R.]

Whether he ever gets a four-year term, it will be interesting to see how Charles Stenholm defeats yet another GOP attempt to unseat him in 2004.

[So Cal Rocket]

Stenholm, D-Stamford, says elections have become too time consuming and too expensive and are leaving little time for members of Congress to do legislative work.

And this is a bad thing because????????

[PISANO]

This may have a chance in passing due to the LIFE LONG bureacrats need for power. I wish there was some way to get back to the original intent of the framers to have regular CITIZENS serve and then get out a go back to their jobs in their local communities. I guess that is wishing on a star.

[Digger]

Next these power-hungy pols will want tenure for life. They are 90% there now in this "Two-Party Cartel". More are re-elected % wise than in the old Soviet Union. I would go for this with term limits of one time.

[IGOTMINE]

Representatives in the House were intended to be subjected to an election every two years, as they were supposed to be more direct representatives of the people. The modern electon cycle is gruelling, but if you can't stand the heat...

[TheDon]

Sounds like a reason for a 1 year term. Why didn't we think of this before?

[jae471]

Personally, I liked the Pennsylvania (I think) system in the late 1700s. One-year terms, no governor, and very few laws took effect until after the next election, where they were approved by the new representatives. It was similar to the 27th Amendment (which was part of the Madison's original Bill of Rights), but much broader.

In effect, every election was a referendum on the previous legislature.

[Theodore R.]

The people elect and defeat the candidates, but it is the legislative lines and how they are drawn that determine the real winners. "We the people" can't figure out that we have become mere formalities in the process.

[Paleo Conservative]

This may have a chance in passing due to the LIFE LONG bureacrats need for power. I wish there was some way to get back to the original intent of the framers to have regular CITIZENS serve and then get out a go back to their jobs in their local communities. I guess that is wishing on a star.

It will pass when hell freezes over. A constitutional amendment would be required, and there is no way the states would ratify such an amendment.

[KarlInOhio]

What an idiot. Most House seats are barely competitive because they are carefully carved out to make sure that one party or the other has a lock on the seat. It only gets interesting when there has been some redistricting.

A Republican won my seat for the first time in my memory (more than the 13 years I've lived here) because of redistricting. Before that, the Repubs wouldn't even waste their money running someone, so Tony Hall could just phone in the race without leaving his house near Washington.

[Political Junkie Too]

Stenholm, D-Stamford, says elections have become too time consuming and too expensive and are leaving little time for members of Congress to do legislative work.

He must be talking about the Senate, because House districts aren't big enough to warrant that kind of effort. And we all know that the Senate used to be appointed, not elected. It wasn't until the 17th amendment in 1913 that elections occurred for the Senate, and those are 33 the most expensive elections that occur every two years.

If you want to stop the "dialing for dollars," repeal the 17th amendment, don't make House terms equal Presidential terms.

-PJ

[Paleo Conservative]

If you want to stop the "dialing for dollars," repeal the 17th amendment, don't make House terms equal Presidential terms.

Absolutely correct.