Rigell says House terms should be few, and longer

Frustrated with what they consider congressional complacency and inaction, U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell and two other freshman Republican lawmakers are proposing to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit the number of terms anyone can serve in the House or Senate and lengthen House terms from two years to four.

Their resolution filed this week joins at least a half-dozen other measures calling for a similar constitutional amendment. None have gained traction.

As recently as last week, the Senate rejected, 74-25, a proposal to consider a term limits amendment. Virginia's two senators, Democrats Jim Webb and Mark Warner, voted against the measure.

In the past, Warner has said elected officials already face term limits every time they run for re-election.

Rigell, who was elected in 2010 from Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, said the requirement to run for re-election during the second year in office means there is less time to focus on governing.

Congress moves substantially slower in an election year compared with a non-election year, he said. "This slow pace slows good legislation - for example tax reform."

"There are some things that we must acknowledge that have changed even in the last 50 years over federal elections," he said. "That is the intensity and the cost."

Members of Congress are torn between their duties as an elected official and the need to raise money for a campaign, he said.

Rigell's Democratic opponent in the November election, Virginia Beach businessman Paul Hirschbiel, opposes changing the two-year term and requiring term limits, said his campaign manager, Trey Nix.

"The last thing we need is for Washington to let itself off the hook, to be held less accountable," Nix said. "Voters get to hold them accountable every two years."

The House resolution, also sponsored by Reps. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin, and Tim Scott of South Carolina, would limit each House member and senator to a total of 12 years in office. Senators currently serve six-year terms. If approved, time served by current members of Congress would not be included in the 12-year limit.

Winning approval for a constitutional amendment is a daunting task.

The measure first must be approved by two-thirds of the 435-member House and the 100-member Senate. If it it passes Congress, the amendment must be approved by at least three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures within seven years.

University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato said there's almost no chance that a term-limit amendment can pass, nor is it likely that the House members' terms would be increased to four years. The opposition to such changes is too strong, he said.

"It's not going to happen," said Sabato, who argued in favor of term limits and longer House terms in his book, "A More Perfect Constitution."

"Imagine how the Senate feels about giving House members four years," Sabato said. "It means at midterm they could run against an incumbent senator without fear of losing their House seat. What do you think the chances are that the Senate is going to agree to that?"