I am strongly in favor of Congressional term limits and believe they would improve government function for several reasons, though I question what those limits should be. Some arguments for limiting terms: 1. Forces representatives to work more efficiently toward achieving goals; 2. Makes it difficult for one party to obstruct the legislative goals of the sitting President's administration, solely for the sake of obstructing same, like the GOP and Tea Party have done since the 2010 mid-term elections; 3. Less time and opportunity for backdoor wheeling and dealing and granting favors; 4. Makes it more difficult for corporate lobbyists to have an effect by means of long-term, close relationships with lawmakers. Arguments against, which make me question what an appropriate term limit would actually be, include: 1. Creates incentive for corporations to "home-grow" a continuous flow of politicians around the country willing to act in their favor, which would be difficult to monitor with such a quick, mandatory turnover, especially in light of Citizens United; 2. Change takes time and 6 years is a not a significant amount of time to effect meaningful change (e.g., the ACA, from its first proposal as a bill to the present, lawmakers need more time to identify and fix its flaws); 3. Term limits imposed on Congress, a body of lawmakers working together, should not be less than that of POTUS, one person with executive authority and veto power; 4. There is something to be said about having experience, and if such term limits are imposed, in a matter of just 6 years, Congress will collectively have very little experience running the government. I believe I would be more comfortable supporting this bill if the term limits were longer.