One of the tenets of the Republicans' "Contract With America" was a promise to the American people that this Congress would vote to limit their own terms of office and replace the career politician with the citizen legislator.

I support this initiative to bring an end to the corruption and abuse of power that have characterized the U.S. Congress in recent years. The American people deserve better than a Congress that engages in the writing of bad checks or the selling of favors to men such as Charles Keating. The vast advantages that incumbency provides have limited the accountability of many members of Congress and have deprived the American people of a true voice in government.

Since 1950, the reelection rates for incumbents have been consistently over 80 percent in the House and 75 percent in the Senate. The free mailing privilege granted to Congressional representatives and substantial donations from special interest groups have made it incredibly difficult to defeat an incumbent..

Since more than 80 percent of members typically seek reelection in a given year, the turnover rate in Congress is far lower than at other times in American history. As a result, the power of special interests, who confer these electoral advantages on the incumbents, has steadily increased.

Opponents of terms limits argue that such measures only limit the power of the American people to choose their representation in Congress. Yet the terms of the president and a majority of the nation's governors are limited by law. By limiting the terms of members of Congress we would ensure that all our elected officials are held equally accountable.

The argument that term limits would deprive Congress of its most able members is equally ill-founded. If we measure legislative ability by the extent to which sweeping reform is enacted, then term limits would actually lead to a more able Congress.

The largest turnover in the House of Representatives in the 20th century occurred in 1932. The next session of Congress, the one with the most first-term representatives of any Congress since the 19th century, enacted a wide array of reforms that forever transformed American government.

Similar turnovers in membership preceded the enactment of the Great Society programs and of the Reagan tax cuts. As can be seen, the performance of Congress is in no sense linked to the experience of its members.

Nor would enacting term limits shift the balance of power within the federal government towards the President, as many opponents of term limits contend. The turnover in Congress was far higher during the latter part of the 19th century than in the decades since World War II. Yet the 1870s and 1880s were characterized by weak presidents and a dominant Congress, while recent decades have seen the exact opposite. Clearly, no relationship exists between the power of Congress and term limits.

The outcome of the most recent election only reinforces the claim that incumbents are virtually impossible to defeat. While the Republican party did capture both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952, the large number of open seats played a decisive role, especially in the Senate. In that chamber, the Republicans gained eight seats but six of them had been left vacant after the incumbents retired. The only incumbents defeated were Jim Sasser of Tennessee and Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania. Unpopular incumbents, like New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, won reelection primarily because of superior fund-raising skills. Term limits would help ensure that election to Congress is based upon merit rather than money.

Finally, the enactment of term limits would weaken special interest groups and return power to the hands of the American people. With their terms limited by law, members of Congress would be more inclined to do what is right rather than pander to the special interest groups.

The special interest groups are aware of this fact and have repeatedly fought the establishment of term limits, most recently in California. I urge the U.S. Congress to shake off the influence of special interest groups and do what is right for the country by limiting their own terms of office.