Term Limits Were Obviously a Good Idea Act

Section 1. Short Title and Finding of Self-Evident Absurdity

This Act may be cited as the “Term Limits Were Obviously a Good Idea Act” or the “You Made the President Do It Act of 2026.”

Congress finds, or rather, the American public finds and Congress reluctantly enters into the record:

(a) The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, limits the President of the United States to two terms of four years each, on the sensible theory that no single person should hold the most powerful office in the country indefinitely. Congress applied no such logic to itself.

(b) Robert C. Byrd served in the United States Senate for 51 years. Strom Thurmond served for 48 years. John Dingell served in the House for 59 years. These tenures exceeded the lifespan of many of the programs they voted on.

(c) Between 75% and 82% of Americans consistently support congressional term limits in every major poll conducted over the past three decades, making it one of the most popular policy positions in the country and one of the least likely to be enacted, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has ever asked a fox to design a henhouse security system.

(d) In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states cannot impose their own term limits on members of Congress, holding that only a constitutional amendment could accomplish this. Twenty-three states had passed term limit laws that were subsequently invalidated. The ruling effectively placed the decision in the hands of the very people who would be limited.

(e) The average House member currently serves 8.9 years and the average Senator 11.2 years, which sounds reasonable until one examines the distribution and discovers that the averages are pulled down by the many members who serve one or two terms, while a smaller group serves for three, four, or five decades, accumulating seniority, committee chairmanships, and an increasingly tenuous connection to the constituents who first elected them.

Section 2. The 22nd Amendment Extension Clause

2(a). Proposed Constitutional Amendment

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

“No person shall serve as a member of the United States Congress for more than twelve years of combined service in the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

2(b). Rationale

Twelve years provides:

1. Up to six terms in the House, which is enough time to learn the job, accomplish something, and leave before the job becomes your entire identity
2. Up to two terms in the Senate, matching the presidential model of “enough time to govern, not enough time to fossilize”
3. A combined limit that prevents the strategy of serving 30 years in the House and then moving to the Senate for another 20

2(c). The “Why Does the President Get Limits but Congress Doesn’t?” Question

Congress has never provided a satisfactory answer to this question. The 22nd Amendment was ratified with the clear premise that concentration of power in one person for an extended period is dangerous to democratic governance. Congress appears to believe this premise applies exclusively to the executive branch, which is convenient.

Section 3. The Incumbency Advantage Audit

3(a). Establishment

The Government Accountability Office shall conduct and publish a biennial Incumbency Advantage Audit quantifying the electoral advantages enjoyed by sitting members of Congress, including but not limited to:

1. Name recognition differential: The average challenger begins with approximately 20% name recognition versus the incumbent’s 80-95%
2. Fundraising advantage: Incumbents raise, on average, 4-10 times more than their challengers
3. Franking privilege: The ability to send mail to constituents at taxpayer expense, valued at approximately $20 million per year across Congress
4. Media access: Incumbents receive approximately 3x the free media coverage of challengers
5. Gerrymandering benefit: The percentage of districts drawn to be “safe” for the incumbent’s party

3(b). Reelection Rate

The audit shall prominently feature the current congressional reelection rate, which has exceeded 90% in the House in every election cycle since 1964, a success rate that would be impressive if it reflected popular satisfaction rather than structural advantage.

3(c). International Comparison

The audit shall include a comparison of congressional tenure with legislative tenure in peer democracies, most of which have either formal term limits or cultural norms of rotation that produce substantially more turnover than the United States Congress, which has all the dynamism of a tenured faculty meeting.

Section 4. The Public Opinion vs. Congressional Vote Ratio

4(a). Establishment

The Congressional Research Service shall maintain a running comparison of public polling data on term limits versus congressional voting records on term limits, displayed as a ratio.

4(b). Current Ratio

As of the date of this bill’s introduction, the ratio stands at approximately:

• Public support: 82%
• Congressional support: 0%
• Ratio: Undefined (division by zero)

4(c). Significance

A ratio of 82:0 on any other issue would be considered a catastrophic failure of representative democracy. On this issue, it is considered normal, which tells you everything you need to know about why the bill is necessary.

Section 5. Career Politician Retirement Transition

5(a). Transition Assistance

Members who would be affected by the term limit shall receive transition assistance equivalent to what is available to any other federal employee whose position is eliminated, which is to say, not very much.

5(b). Career Counseling

The Office of Personnel Management shall provide career counseling to departing members, including a realistic assessment of their skills, which after 30 years in Congress may include: giving speeches, attending fundraisers, and voting on things they haven’t read.

5(c). The Lobbying Alternative

The transition program shall include a prominent disclaimer noting that while becoming a lobbyist is the most common post-congressional career, it is not the only option, despite what the member’s colleagues may suggest.

Section 6. Grandfathering and Effective Date

6(a). No Grandfathering

This amendment shall apply to all sitting members of Congress upon ratification. There shall be no grandfathering clause, because the entire point is that some members have been grandfathered into their seats for half a century.

6(b). Effective Date

This Act shall take effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures, which the sponsors acknowledge is the only path available after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Thornton. The sponsors further acknowledge that asking Congress to propose an amendment limiting Congress is like asking a barber if you need a haircut.

Section 7. Acknowledgment of Mathematical Impossibility

Congress hereby acknowledges that this bill requires a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers to propose the constitutional amendment, meaning it needs the affirmative vote of approximately 357 people whose careers would be shortened by the amendment, which is a mathematical and psychological impossibility that the sponsors present to the public record as evidence of the structural problem this bill attempts to solve.

Committee Note: This bill was reported unfavorably by a vote of 0-34, the only unanimous committee vote of the session. The committee chair, now in his 28th year of service, described term limits as “a simplistic solution” and noted that “institutional knowledge is invaluable.” The ranking member, in her 22nd year of service, concurred. Neither appeared to notice the irony, or if they did, they had long since made peace with it.

---

This bill was defeated 0-435, achieving the distinction of being the only unanimous vote of the entire congressional session. For one brief, bipartisan moment, every member of Congress agreed on something: that they should not be subject to term limits. The vote was praised by both party leadership as evidence of “the ability to find common ground,” which is technically true. The sponsor’s concession statement read, in its entirety: “435 people just voted that 435 people should be allowed to keep their jobs forever. I rest my case.” A Gallup poll conducted the following week found that 82% of Americans still supported term limits. Congress did not comment.