Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise for two reasons: First, to correct something that I said in the Committee on the Judiciary and, second, to engage the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] in a colloquy, but first as to the correction: In committee I was very concerned about the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. Now I am much more convinced of the rectitude of the amendment in that it does improve the bill, and so I apologize to the gentleman for misunderstanding it at the Committee on the Judiciary and feel that he did make a significant improvement to the bill. That is my first observation. The second: My reason for engaging the gentleman in a colloquy just briefly, Mr. Chairman, is to ask whether at some point--I am, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a little bit interested in the Michigan rule that would possibly sharpen up loser pays. We are not going to offer that at this juncture, but I guess I am asking the gentleman from Virginia if possibly somewhere down the road we might look at that if this does not work as well as we think it is going to work. I am concerned about that middle ground and hoping that we can push the parties even closer towards settlement and sharpen it up a little bit, but maybe the gentleman would have some thoughts about----

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I point out to the gentleman from Virginia I think that he has well stated that he is in a middle position here, between the position I might take and the position the gentleman from Michigan might take and, therefore, shows the reasonableness of the gentleman from Virginia's point of view. I think that in the future I hope that we can come back and revisit to figure out whether we need to tighten it up a little bit and move it toward this direction.

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

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Michigan the problem is that I think he is overlooking the fact that in many of these cases the plaintiff would not have much risk. Talking about contingency fee arrangement. The defendant is the one at risk, who is hanging out to dry as a small business person. They are hanging out to dry while the plaintiff has very little risk. The Chairman. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] has expired.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I believe what this is all about is making it more difficult for Washington to regulate the activities out there in America. And that is a good thing, because what has built up in this country is a mindset based on taxation, regulation, and litigation. We are going to deal with the litigation portion next week, with legal reform items; we are going to deal with the taxation part of that trilogy a little after that. This week we are dealing with the regulatory part of that terrible trilogy so weighing down this country. I believe this is a good step toward reining in some of those regulators, to making them have some justification for their additional regulations. That certainly will make sense out there in America where businesses, particularly small businesses, are collapsing under the weight of this tremendous pressure from the regulators. So I am very excited to support this bill. I commend the chairman of our subcommittee for doing an excellent job in bringing the bill to us.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida. I believe he wanted to have some further words about this.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, two things I think we should point out. One is that we are not talking about here a rule that goes back to the foundation of the Constitution. In fact, as I understand it, it first appeared in 1914, and then the exception, good faith exception, appeared in 1984, so we are not talking about the founding documents. The second thing I think is important to point out is that we are not talking about here some sort of an abuse of process. What we are talking about simply is the ability of police officers and prosecutors to use material seized in good faith, in this case with a warrantless search. I think it makes a whole lot of sense. It makes a whole lot of common sense to the American people. I do not see any violence being done to the fourth amendment. I do, however, see some violence being done every time we would have some kind of an issue on the floor that we would put up for a vote a piece in the Constitution. I suppose that means that if we get into a debate on last year's crime bill, somebody could have arisen and suggested that we reiterate the words of the second amendment.It does not really make much sense to go around reiterating in statute form the words of the Constitution. I am very happy to affirm those words, because they are very meaningful, but it really does not have much legal significance to affirm those words by statute. That is to demean the Constitution of the United States, because it is not a statute. It is not amendable here on the floor of this House, but only by the people of this country after two-thirds vote here and three-fourths of the States ratify it.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman, I really cannot figure out exactly what the amendment does, to tell the truth. The legal significance of the amendment is an absurdity, really. It is from the Constitution. I just see it as a legal absurdity.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the gentleman from North Carolina, it just does not make sense to go around restating in statute form the words of the Constitution of the United States. It is as though we have to shore up the Constitution. I do not see any need here to shore up the Constitution. The Constitution is the Constitution, regardless of what we do here on the floor today. We cannot amend it here on the floor. I know, as somebody involved in the term limit effort, it is hard to amend the Constitution of the United States. We do not need to, by simple statute, do something that really has no legal effect. It is just to repeat the words of the fourth amendment.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time if I may, before I yield to the gentleman from Florida I would say this is the only reason it would. I would say to the gentleman from North Carolina we are making positive progress here and the gentleman simply goes back to restate law that is actually the constitutional law and, therefore, he obliterates all of the forward progress. I think that is fairly obvious as to why this would gut the bill. We are not making any forward progress.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with two observations for my colleagues. One is, what incredible progress on the term limit effort. Who would have thought 2 years ago, when I came to this body, that we would be voting today on a rule that would limit committee chairmen to three 2- year terms. What incredible progress for the term limit effort, and I have to say, too, it is very important as an indication of what is in this Contract for America and the exciting things we can do if we stick to the contract. The second observation I have for any Members who are somewhat questioning whether we need to do this, a look at the statistics about the average stay of the Members of the leadership of the old Congress. According to the Term Limits Legal Institute, the average American keeps his or her job 6 years. The average Member of Congress keeps his or her job 10 years. But the average Member of the leadership in the old Congress kept his or her jobs for 28 years. That is why we need to limit committee chairmen to three 2-year terms, and that is why we have got a historic opportunity right here right, right now, to have real reform in this House.