An Idea: Term Limits and Pay for the U.S. Congress

I have developed and discussed some ideas about term limits for a very long time, but it is now time to put pen to paper as they say, or in this case fingers to keyboard. I want to make one thing perfectly clear here in that I am not the only one who has thought of this idea nor will I be the last, but I believe that what I will detail will allow both the House of Representatives and the Senate to operate with leadership and coherence as our lawmaking body. Leadership is key and can thrive when combined with new members that bring fresh ideas.

The Senate will be the starting point. The terms will stay six years, but someone can only serve a maximum of three terms. This would allow a total of 18 years in the Senate. In the House of Representatives, the terms would be increased to three years and a representative can hold 5 terms, for a total of 15 years maximum. Now, admittedly someone could go from the House to the Senate and make a career out of serving in Congress, but this would eliminate this from essentially turning into the norm like it is today. This would still allow reelection for those that seek it and even moving from House to Senate or vice-versa. This allows for political freedom for the individual who wants to seek office, but it also cuts it off at some point as well. This cut off would allow new representatives in each state and the districts within them to through their hat in the ring, but most importantly throw their ideas in the ring to allow more diverse ideas to make its way into the Legislative Branch.

Another positive here is the now six years (Senate) and three years (House) split would mean that elections would need to be tiered every three years. This means the entirety of the House of Representatives and half of the Senate is up for reelection every three years. This also takes Congressional elections off-cycle with the Presidential elections allowing the nation as a whole to focus in on these elections and looking at different state and district issues. Voter turnout in non-Presidential elections is always much lower than in Presidential elections. By moving Congressional elections to their own cycle this will allow the media to focus on these elections more as well as promote them to potential voters as well. Of course, this does not guarantee higher voter turn out of course, but it could provide a better environment where this could happen and that is a very good thing.

This will, of course, bring up the pay of members of the Legislative Branch. Currently, the rank and file members of Congress make $174,000 per year. Leadership positions like Speaker of the House make more due to additional responsibilities, but I would change this structure. In the Senate, a sitting member's pay will be the median income for that state on the year they are elected or reelected. In the House of Representatives, this would work the same way, but it would be the median income for the district that is represented. This will admittedly create a wage difference in both the House and the Senate, but that is not the point. The point in doing this is that representatives in Congress are intended to represent the people and they cannot accurately represent them if they do not know what it is like to live like them. This would create a closer connection between representatives and the people who elect them.

This is all about creating opportunity. Opportunity for more ideas and diverse people in Congress itself, but more important opportunity for we the people to engage with those that represent us in the Legislative Branch. By creating limits in both terms and pay this will allow fresh ideas and perspectives to enter the halls of the U.S. Capitol building. In doing so it is a hope that it is our nation will be closer to being truly represented in the Legislative Branch.

Voter Turnout Information: https://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101

Congressional Pay Information: https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/9c14ec69-c4e4-4bd8-8953-f73daa1640e4.pdf