Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt]. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman]. (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], a good friend.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of North Carolina [Mr. Coble].

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] who, I might note, represents the fact that there is no dumbing-down in term limits, and who is a fine physician who has come to this House.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington [Mr. Metcalf], where apparently 1.1 million people were wrong in 1992 when they voted for term limits.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford]. While he is coming, I would point out that he, too, represents the best in America that proves that this is not the dumbing down of America, for he is a successful businessman and farmer himself.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a minute and a half to a strong supporter of term limits, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English]

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we just heard from somebody who represents some of the 2.3 million people in Michigan that apparently made the wrong decision on term limits, according to a previous speaker. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], who represents some of the 6.5 million people in California who voted for term limits.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], who was one of the strong supporters of term limits legislation there which was passed in 1992 by 74 percent.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], who represents some of the 1 million people who voted for term limits in 1992.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Windsor, CA [Mr. Riggs], who represents some of the 6.5 million people in California who voted for term limits.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as we close this debate on this 6-year version of term limits, I think it is important not to stress the 6 years or the number of years but rather go back to the foundational principle here of why we need term limits. Once again, that reason is the permanent Congress that we have got in the United States at this point. For all the change we are talking about, we have heard a lot of speakers refer to the fact that we have got 50 percent of the body is new in the last two cycles, all of that may be true. But the critical thing is, who came back that wanted to come back? What is the rate of reelection among those who wanted to come back. Do not look at open seats, because we know people die or retire or move on for whatever reason. But of those who wanted to come back in 1994, with all of the change we got, 90 percent of us were reelected. That is a higher rate of reelection than the rate of reelection that used to obtain in the Soviet Union, when the Politburo ran the Soviet Union. It is very important that we limit terms so that we can get a different kind of person here. And yes, a person without that experience that so many Members have talked about, with, frankly, such arrogance, to assume that we have such experience to run these huge programs, that experience has landed us $4.8 trillion in debt. It is time for a different kind of experience in this body, the experience of ordinary people who would come here and work for a limited period of time on their specific agenda and then go home to live under the laws they created.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] and think that it really is an excellent way to go here, and I want to thank two folks or two groups of people in particular. First is the freshmen that have made such a tremendous contribution to where we are today. As my colleagues know, prior to the 1992 election there were 30 cosponsors of term-limits legislation. After the 1992 election, where my class came in, there were over a hundred. Now, as a result of this new freshman class, I think today we are going to be way over 200. That is tremendous growth, and it is because of the people that are standing right here. And in answer to something that the gentleman from Michigan asked earlier, how many of these folks would limit themselves, well, look at the freshman class, and my colleagues will find the answer. As I look across this sea of freshmen over here that are supporting this amendment, I will tell the gentleman from Michigan that quite a few of them are going to limit themselves to the term limit that they propose. The proof is in the pudding with these folks, and it is very exciting to and historic debate. The second group that I think it is important to thank at this point for where we are in term limits is the leadership of this House. What a tremendous thing, to have a Speaker who is willing to bring this to the floor, a majority leader who is passionately for us, a subcommittee chairman of the constitutional committee of the Committee on the Judiciary who helped us get this far and everybody in between. It is an exciting day for term limits. There is the Committee on Rules chairman right there who worked very hard to get this rule to where we could win or get the closest to winning. It is an exciting day for term limits, and I particularly support the approach of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] here. It makes a whole lot of sense.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would make two points. First, in response to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], I do not know that democracy is in danger due to the fact that all but 19 United States is limited to two terms in office. I have not heard any hue and cry on this floor about how dangerous ground democracy is on by virtue of those term limits. The second observation, on the first vote today, the Democratic alternative offered by admitted opponents of term limits, there were 81 Democrats voting in favor of term limits. We need some votes right now for final passage. Eighty percent of the American people want term limits. Eighty percent of this side is going to vote for term limits. We need 80 percent on this side. If we get 80 percent over here, particularly those 81 folks who voted for term limits first out today, we will pass term limits in a matter of minutes. Please, vote for term limits. We have the opportunity here in a matter of moments. Mr. CONYERS, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. We have one speaker remaining.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I rise in strong support of this rule and to point out a couple of things. One, what a difference an election makes. Last time in this Congress, the last Congress, the 103d Congress, we begged and we pleaded and we scrapped and we got a hearing in a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. And then we begged and we pleaded and we scraped some more, and we got a second little hearing. The chairman of that subcommittee was adamantly opposed to term limits. The chairman of our new subcommittee is very much for term limits. He was just here, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], on the floor, speaking in favor of this rule. Last time, last Congress, the Speaker of this House of Representatives sued the people of the State of Washington saying that what they had done was unconstitutional in limiting his term in office. Now, we have a Speaker who is forthrightly for term limits and has brought this rule and this matter to the floor. What a difference an election makes in the history of a nation. And now we have got an opportunity. What a great rule. I am concerned to hear my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, not speak in favor of the rule. I think actually this is a tremendously successful crafting of this issue. The question is, of course, there are two arguments against it. One is it is restrictive, we did not make enough has got too many options in it, and the result is we will have confusion. I cannot imagine a more accountable vote on this matter than the way it is structured this way. Members are going to have to vote up or down on a 6-year bill. That happens to be my bill. Then they are going to have to vote up or down on a 12-year bill that allows State flexibility. They are going to have to vote up or down on a 12-year bill that is silent on preemption, and they are going to have to vote up or down on a 12-year bill that calls for retroactivity designed, by admission of its proponents, to be a poison pill designed to kill term limits. But in any event, we are going to have accountability in this Congress, and what a difference the American people are seeing. It truly is an exciting day in the history of this Congress.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise on the eve of a very historic day in this Chamber. Tomorrow, for the first time in the history of this country, we are going to vote on term limits. This is a very exciting moment as we prepare to undertake what I believe to be the most significant reform that this body has ever made for itself. This is an exciting day. First of all, I want to indicate to all watching here tonight and all of my colleagues here in the House that this rule that makes in order tomorrow these four options is a tremendous opportunity for us to get real accountability on the issue of term limits. Tomorrow there isn't going to be anyplace for Members of Congress to hide. They are either voting for my 6-year bill, they are voting for a 12-year bill that Mr. McCollum just spoke of, they are voting for a 12-year bill that Mr. Hilleary spoke of earlier, or they are voting for a fraud that is masquerading as term limits that is really not term limits, it is designed as a poison pill to kill term limits by retroactivity provisions. Those are the options. Tomorrow Members in this Chamber will have to vote yes or no on term limits. Tonight what I would like to do is begin laying the case that we will make after many hours of debate tomorrow on the need for term limits. I have a couple of charts that I think will demonstrate fairly well why we need term limits. The first one I have here shows the average tenure of a Member of Congress and members of the general public in their jobs. As you can see here, the average American keeps his or her job 6 years. The average Member of Congress keeps his or her job 8 years. The average member, and this is a critical number, the average member of the leadership of this institution has kept his or her job for 22 years. That is ranking members and committee chairmen, add them all up, take the average, they have been here an average of 22 years. I think this tells the story of what is wrong with this Congress. This is what the American people seek to change. They want a more fluid body. They do not want a leadership that has been here 22 years on average. They want it more in line with what the average American experiences, a job change on average every 6 years. Of course, in the 1994 election we had a great deal of talk about change, and there was a tremendous change, because we got a change in the management team here in Congress. I should point out right here what a difference an election can make. The last Congress, the 103d Congress, we were fighting against a Speaker of the House of Representatives who sued the people of his State, arguing that what they had done in a State initiative was unconstitutional. Now we have a Speaker of the House who is helping us to get a good vote on this floor and is pushing Members of this Congress to vote for what the American people want, which is term limits. By 80 percent the American people want term limits. So when difference. The 1994 elections brought people like Mr. Fox, my colleague here, who arranged this series of special orders here tonight, and I very much appreciate all of his work on terms limits. It has brought wonderful people like Mr. Fox here. It has brought people like Mr. Hilleary, who has an amendment on the floor tomorrow. It has brought people like my two colleagues from South Carolina, Mr. Sanford and Mr. Graham, that are strong supporters of term limits. But that election, for all that change and particularly that management change, really reflected a great deal of continuity in this body. Here is again why we need term limits. The 1994 election, of those who wanted to come back, 90 percent were reelected. In 1992, of those who wanted to come back, 88 percent were reelected. In 1990, of those who wanted to come back, 96 percent were reelected. It is very important to look at those who wanted to come back, because the change we have gotten, particularly if you look at 1992 and 1994, has been as a result of open seat elections. In other words, people deciding to retire or leave for whatever reason, they left, they left an open seat. As a result, we had an open seat election. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] is here with me tonight. When we were elected, both of us came in 1992, we both, maybe one of the best arguments against term limits, because both of us happened to defeat incumbents. That was very rare in 1992, 88 percent of those who wanted to come back, and again, 1994, 90 percent of those who wanted to come back came back. This indicates we have got a permanent Congress. That permanent Congress needs to be changed by term limits. If we enact term limits, we will have a different kind of Congress, we will have a Congress that is more accountable to the American people, and a Congress that would not take much time to pass a constitutional amendment on term limits when they realize that 80 percent of the American people want it. The percentages are maybe reversed in here. It is hard to get people to vote for term limits inside here. But tomorrow I think we will do just that.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. I rise tonight in strong support of this legislation and really to make two points. One is a story, and then second, what I believe to be the bottom line of this whole discussion, but the story first. There is a plant in my district that makes food processing equipment. It is a very successful company that makes very fine food equipment, processing equipment that can grind meat and do all kinds of things like that, high-quality, highly skilled work that is done by very trained people. Early in my campaign for the Congress of 1992 I visited that plant, and the owner took me on a tour, and he showed me this very sophisticated equipment they can build, and he told me that actually the growth of his business is out of that and into pizza delivery boxes for export to Mexico. The reason, he says, it is a growth industry in Mexico, apparently pizza is selling well in Mexico, but also he cannot afford the liability insurance associated with that food processing equipment. He can no longer afford the multiple lawsuits that are filed against his company, particularly when people alter the product, take off the warnings, and sue him many years later for a product long ago forgotten by his company. I would submit to my colleagues that that is happening all across this country, and if we want to move out of high-technology, truly specialized equipment, highly sophisticated equipment like this food processing equipment and into making pizza boxes, I guess that is all right, but I think that is the wrong direction to go. We should encourage these manufacturers to make these very skilled products. The second observation I would make is really the bottom line of all of this, is whether we are a nation that is going to focus on responsibilities and not just rights, and that is really what it boils down to. In this debate, what you are going to hear is a whole lot of discussion about how somebody else is responsible for my actions, somebody else is a guarantor of my health and happiness and that really is not the case.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.