Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Lockwood Greene, one of the country's largest design-build consulting firms and a fine company located in Spartanburg, SC, in my district. On February 19, Lockwood Greene will donate more than 5,000 original engineering drawings to the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History so they may be preserved for all to enjoy. The works date to the mid-1800's and provide a historical look at how America evolved as new technologies were invented. Included in the collection are drawings, depicting how power was transmitted through a factory before the introduction of electricity; drawings recording the emergence of water as a form of power; and designs for radio stations that were built shortly after World War II. Lockwood Greene has a long history of contributions to engineering, beginning with its founding in New England in 1832 and continuing today with its headquarters in South Carolina. I commend Lockwood Greene and its chairman, Donald R. Luger, for their tremendous gift to the Smithsonian and for preserving these wonderful designs, which lend so much insight into the history of both American engineering and our cultural development. I am pleased to represent the employees of Lockwood Greene.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I appreciate the opportunity to have this debate on the floor of the House today and to have this historic vote on term limits, the second in the history of the country. Let me start by thanking the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who spoke very eloquently before, against term limits, but to thank Henry Hyde for being willing to let this come through his committee and for being willing to let there be this debate on the floor of the House so that the American people can hear the debate and know that their voices are being heard. It speaks very well for the chairman to allow that to happen, and it also speaks well for the leadership of this House. Speaker Gingrich promised that when we failed in the Contract With America to get enough votes to propose a constitutional amendment here in the House, he promised that this would be the first substantive vote of the new Congress if he were still Speaker. Here we are at the first substantive vote of this new Congress, promises made, promises kept, I very much appreciate the integrity of the leadership for seeing that happen. So with thanks to the leadership and thanks to Chairman Hyde for allowing this to come through the committee, I would start by saying, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of term limits is one that the American people understand to be the best reform we could bring to the institution of Congress. There has been a lot of discussion about whether we need term limits in order to get rid of experienced people. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary particularly spoke to that. I would differ slightly with that. I do not think that is really necessarily the goal of term limits, to throw out people with experience. Because in fact we have no objection in the term limits effort if Henry Hyde wanted to run for President, I would be one of the first to sign on to the Henry Hyde for President committee. We do not have a problem with that kind of experience. What we do have a problem with is a Congress made up of incumbents who are virtually safe in their House districts, such that there is almost no way for them to be defeated. As evidence of that, let me present some statistics about the reelection rate of House incumbents, starting in 1990. In 1990, of those incumbents who wanted to come back, in other words, some people retire, some people get indicted, I suppose, some people do whatever and leave this House. But of those who wanted to come back, 96 percent came back in 1990. In 1992, the year that I came here, 88 percent of incumbents, those who stood for reelection, who wanted to come back to serve in the House, came back-- 88 percent rate of reelection. Then in 1994, the rate of reelection was 90 percent. That is interesting, because a lot of people assumed that in 1994 we had major change, significant change here in the House, and we did get some change. A lot of that change came from open seats. Very little change came from actual losses by incumbents to challengers--90 percent were reelected in 1994. And in 1996 we were back up to a 94- percent rate of reelection. In other words, 94 percent of us who wanted to come back, came back as a result of the 1996 election. This does not indicate that the American people are terribly satisfied, I do not think, however. Some would use these statistics to say, ``Well, that is because they love me. That is why they keep sending me back.'' I do not think that is exactly it. I think it is mostly that there are tremendous advantages of incumbency. The biggest one is fundraising. Of course the way we have got the campaign finance system set up, the PAC system rewards incumbents. It protects incumbents from voters. It makes it so that incumbents become virtual shoo-ins for their reelection. Some would say, therefore, that is an argument not for term limits, that is an argument for campaign finance reform. I would agree that it is a good argument for campaign finance reform, but even if we get campaign finance reform, and I certainly hope we do, there are still tremendous advantages to incumbency. In 1992, I was one of these folks who was running in a challenge race. During the course of the 1992 campaign, just as a very small illustration of what I am talking about, about the other nonfundraising advantages of incumbency. I was invited on precisely one plant tour. I got that one opportunity to tour a plant because one of my partners prevailed upon his client who owned the plant and begged my way in to tour his plant. One plant tour. Everybody that is a Member of Congress, I am sure, sitting here, has had the same experience. Now, as an incumbent, there is a list of people who would be happy to have me come tour their plant. Generally what happens is people sort of stop production, they gather people around, and it turns into a town meeting. It is a wonderful opportunity for them, and a way to hear about their Government, and I appreciate that, and it really is a very valid thing about going there and doing the plant meeting and having that opportunity. But it is also a significant advantage to incumbency, not just in fundraising but in these other things. Then when you consider the fact that you have the opportunity to be in the media quite frequently in your local district, the result is, particularly here in the House, significant advantages to incumbency. What we see is that Members are able to create virtually safe seats in cozy House districts. Term limits would change that, and some would criticize and say, well, then in the term limit effort it would be inconsistent to allow, say, Henry Hyde to run for President. I do not think so. I think that it would be wonderful if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] wanted to run for President; I would again sign on. Not many people in the term limit effort had much of an objection, for example, to Governor Reagan running to be President Reagan. We do not lose the talent that everybody is talking about losing out of this body; we just redirect it. The talented Member of Congress can run for Governor, and the talented Senator can run for President, and between President and Governor there are dozens of other positions for those folks to fill very capably and to continue making a contribution to public service. We do not want to discourage public service in term limits. What we want to do is bring in some fresh folks. Now of course the argument is that a clear majority of the people in this House have been here for less than the term limit that we are proposing, which the one that will get the most votes, of course, will be the 12-year proposal. That may be true. But what we have to look at is the number of people in the senior positions in the Congress and have they been here longer than that term limit. The answer is ``yes,'' they have been here. So while we get change in this body, it is typically at the lower levels of the body, not in the leadership roles. It is critical to get that kind of change even at the higher levels.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think that term limits, it is wonderful if somebody will apply the limit to themselves, but we need universal limits, I believe, across the board.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of this measure. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arkansas has a good bill that requires a limit of three 2-year terms and really is the preferable approach. I will be taking a slightly different approach than what he just described, in that I will be voting for every term limit bill that is on the floor today because I think that if we are not successful in getting a three 2-year term limit, it is rational then to go forward and try to get the Tillie Fowler 8-year limit, and if we fail on that, then we should go forward to try to get the Bill McCollum 12-year limit in the House and 12-year limit in the Senate. That is the approach that I will be taking. But I should point out that most of the American people seem to believe that 6 years would be the preferable limit. As you can see here, based on surveys of the American people, three terms, three 2-year terms, 6 years, is supported by 82 percent of the American people. Six terms, or 12 years, is supported by 14 percent of the American people. So the three 2-year term bills and the various ones that will be on the floor today I think are preferable. However, I think it is very important to point out that the goal here is to get term limits. So if we do not vote for three 2-year terms, we should then vote for Tillie Fowler's bill that calls for four 2-year terms. And if we are not successful there, then we fall back to the next position, which is Bill McCollum's bill calling for six 2-year terms. It seems to me that the most rational approach is to attempt to get term limits and to move through the process to see which one can garner the most votes. I certainly hope by the end of the day that we have risen above the 227 votes that we got last time and demonstrate momentum in this matter. If we have not, then I think there is a lesson for us in the term limit effort to try to figure out how to come together on this rather than splinter and thereby divide up our vote. I rise in support of Mr. Hutchinson's bill. I think it would be a very preferable approach, and I certainly hope that it passes.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and also I want to thank the gentleman for moving this bill so very quickly through the committee. I certainly appreciate his help in seeing that that is done in a very expeditious way. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] for his coauthoring this bill. It is something that really we are simply giving effect to the very good work of the Governors Association, Southern Governors Association particularly, and they have worked very hard, folks in South Carolina particularly. Stan McKinney, who is the emergency preparedness director in South Carolina, has worked very hard on this, and I am very happy that we now in the Congress are giving effect to that compact, and to see the cooperation that is happening here today is really refreshing and very rewarding. So basically, Madam Speaker, this bill accomplishes the approval of the compact entered into among the States that the chairman just read. The compact essentially handles two very important areas that heretofore have been a little bit murky. First, it deals with the compensation questions about, for example, if South Carolina sends aid to North Carolina after the occurrence of Hurricane Fran, the question is about compensation of the South Carolina National Guard in North Carolina. That is handled by this compact. There is a procedure set up such that South Carolina and North Carolina work that out in advance, and they know how the work is going to be accomplished, how it is going to be paid for. The second thing that the compact does is it deals with the question of liability for, following that same example, the National Guard troops from South Carolina operating in North Carolina. The question heretofore has been, what kind of liability do those troops have in North Carolina? This compact, well worked out by the Southern Governors Association, answers that question by saying that when this South Carolina National Guard is in North Carolina at the request of the State of North Carolina, they are agents of the State of North Carolina and, therefore, enjoy sovereign immunity of the State of North Carolina, and it is governed, any actions there will be governed, by the laws of the State of North Carolina. All of that accomplishes a great deal because it means that States will now be much more able to send assistance and to know in advance what kind of situation they will find there. So I think that the Congress is doing a good thing, the House is doing a good thing this day, I hope, in passing this bill in a very expeditious manner, and then hopefully the other body will follow suit very quickly. The reason that it is important to do this relatively quickly is as, we all know, those of us from coastal States particularly, we are in the midst of hurricane season. We have seen several hurricanes come up the east coast already this year. We hope that no others make their way that way for the rest of the season, but if they do, we will be in a position to help one another and to respond to those emergencies that exist.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that question. As he knows, during our hearing we discussed the possibility that the States might want to entertain further action under good samaritan laws, such that they could entertain that question or answer that question. It would make a whole lot of sense because, for example, after the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo our State received tremendous assistance from a number of other States, I am sure, including the great State of Pennsylvania, and that is a very significant part of our American experience, is helping people in our places. So I would say to the gentleman that the work that should go forth there, to answer his question there, has to do with the State legislatures dealing with their good samaritan laws to handle the situation where a volunteer comes into the State of Pennsylvania, for example, from South Carolina to offer assistance, be governed by the good samaritan laws of the State of Pennsylvania. This, of course, is different, in that here in the situation we are describing here, the State of North Carolina may be requesting the State of South Carolina to send its organized National Guard troops to North Carolina, and that is what this compact is. But I agree with the gentleman that it would be very helpful to have very clear good samaritan laws that deal with a volunteer not under direction of the Governor of the State going to another State to offer assistance.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of victims of abortion walking around today, people who now realize what they did. In fact, it is almost in all of our families, somebody had an abortion that now they know what it was. I cannot believe the Orwellian language on this floor today, that Members actually defend this procedure. The gentlewoman from Texas in the back of the Chamber said earlier, this is only about life of the mother. It is not. The guy who does this says that 80 percent of his cases are solely for convenience. So why did she say that? Why did the gentleman from Texas say things like, this is only about life? Why did the gentleman from California say it is about interstate commerce? Let me tell my colleagues what this is about: This is about a procedure where an abortionist delivers all but the head of a child. It does not deal with interstate commerce. That is not the essence of this. It is about sucking the brains of the child out. That is amazing that we would rely on that.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the chairman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for moving this bill to the floor so quickly. I think it is important to note two things. First, is the importance of this bill, that it will give us the opportunity as a Federal matter to get at these people who would desecrate houses of worship and really seek to destroy a great deal of the social fabric of our communities. So I think it is important to get this bill accomplished and get it passed so that we can get at a successful prosecution of these folks. The second thing I think is important to point out is that there is a message of reconciliation and hope in this. It is a message that Terrence Mackey, the pastor of the Greelyville church that President Clinton visited last week, is so good at putting forth, and that is that in the face of this hateful act, people like Pastor Mackey are presenting a message of forgiveness and hope. That, I think, will get at the deeper problem, because we know that this legislation will be a significant help to Federal prosecutors but we know that underneath this, there is a deeper problem and it is a problem in the heart of humankind. That problem, I think, can only be overcome by people like Pastor Mackey preaching that message of forgiveness and hope. That is the hope of reconciliation. I hope his voice is one that is heard loudest as we go through this process of dealing with the rebuilding and hopefully of the successful prosecution, as well, because of this bill, of the people who would perpetrate these hateful acts.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity now to sit here and listen to some of the comments of our colleagues between the time of the Committee on the Budget's allocated time and now the Joint Economic Committee's allocated time, and it has been very instructive. It has been instructive because particularly these very valuable studies of the Joint Economic Committee point out that this Government is a drag on our economy. It is too big and needs to be reduced in size and scope. As the gentleman from South Carolina just said, for $100 in cuts, you get $138 in expansion of the economy. That is a god bargain, so we should listen to folks on the Joint Economic Committee and have the courage to make these changes. The second observation I would make is really I think it is very interesting to hear some of the comments from this side of the aisle about this budget. I had hoped that maybe this year we were going to be a little bit some candid in our debate, a little bit more forthcoming; that maybe this time we would not subject seniors in America to MediScare, that we would not subject poor people in this country to Medicaid scare. But it is pretty apparent we are going to go through it one more time, round two. In fact, the gentleman on the floor a little while ago said they are going to ``Take away Medicare.'' Take away Medicare. The gentlewoman who just spoke said there were going to be cuts to Medicare. Well, I defy anybody in this body to describe where there are cuts to Medicare. There is a reduction in the rate of growth, and per beneficiary the spending goes from this year, 1996, $5,200, to $7,000 in 2002. The gentleman from Washington State said we are going to take away Medicare. I wonder if that sounds to any of my colleagues like it is taking away Medicare? We are going from $5,200 per year per beneficiary to $7,000 per year in 2002. $5,200 to $7,000. That is not taking away Medicare. That is not a cut to Medicare. That is an increase in Medicare spending. I wonder how it is that our colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, have the ability to say these are cuts? I suppose they are encouraged by the polls that indicate that MediScare works. You can scare seniors in America. They get worried and they decide that they will support you and your political campaign, even though you are imperiling the future of Medicare and of the whole country. I hope as the debate goes on that just maybe, somehow, there will be some additional candor released here in Washington, and we will be able to have an honest debate.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have a great opportunity today to effectively continue the work that was just described, of eliminating these highway demonstration projects. As I understand it, highway demonstration projects were first designed to demonstrate new road construction techniques. Now they simply demonstrate the Members' ability to bring home the bacon to the district. That is what a demonstration project is all about. The gentleman from West Virginia has made some point about others requesting demonstration projects. Let me, I guess, establish my credentials on that point. In 1993, immediately upon being elected to this Congress, I said I would not support a demonstration project in my own district. It created quite a stir, because this is not what Members of Congress are supposed to do. They are supposed to seek the bacon for their district and bring it home. That is how they get reelected, so the story went. Well, I opposed demonstration projects. I said I would not go to Congress. I said, ``If you're choosing somebody to go on a looting mission for one's friends,'' as George Will has said, ``pick somebody else, not me. And if you want to, throw me out after 2 years.'' What happened? People in my district said, ``That's right, Bob. No more demonstration projects. It's a lousy way to do government.'' What else did they say? Look at this, interesting thing. George Bush said no demonstration projects until he got into some trouble with reelection. Then Bill Clinton says no to demonstration projects. What do you make of it? President Bush and President Clinton agreeing, no demonstration projects. So our honorable chairman of the committee over here has taken that action, and I am very excited about that. We need to do it right here. We need to make sure that in this bill we have a fail-safe, so if the committee starts spending demonstration money, it goes back on-budget. It is a nice accountability feature. I think it would make a whole lot of sense to do that right now in this bill so that we make sure that we do not lapse into that old behavior of demonstration projects being clearly designed to win Members reelection. That is what this is all about, and that is why we have got to eliminate these demonstration projects. The point was made earlier, it goes to holy water, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] said, when it goes to the State. I do not know about the holy water, but I do know this. If it goes to Columbia, SC, as a lump of money, in Columbia, SC, we are a relatively small State, we can figure out how to spend it. In 2\1/2\ hours you can get from Columbia to anywhere in South Carolina on the road system we have, and you can determine what the priorities are. If I am given carte blanche to come here and be the demonstration project king, what happens is I start earmarking for my own district, and what happens to Jim Clyburn's district or John Spratt's district or Floyd Spence's district? It gets all irrational. It gets into complete politics way removed from the situation. Columbia has no holy water but it is a small State. We can figure it out as a family. We want to send it back there freely, fairly and then let the State divide it up. That is the way it was designed.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. It says something about the SALT treaties and all that.

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

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. If I may reclaim my time, if that were to happen, let us assume the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation decided to do such a thing. I would imagine it would be a fairly uncomfortable position and an unenviable position for them to be in, having taken a position against demonstration projects. It would be a rather awkward position.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this conference report and with some observations. We have heard a lot about how this is going to impair the ability of those that are legitimately injured to recover, so I think it is important just to go through an example. Let us assume, as I did recently when I had an opportunity to discuss this bill at the Wilson Equipment Co. in Spartanburg, SC, that one of their John Deere tractors injures somebody. Let us assume this scenario. Mr. Jones is cutting grass with a riding lawnmower. A rock is thrown out of the lawnmower, hits Mrs. Jones who is nearby tending the flower garden or something. Mrs. Jones is hurt badly. Let us say she is hurt real badly. Let us see what happens in this case. Well, of course the Jones are going to sue for the medical bills that Mrs. Jones incurred. They are also going to probably sue for pain and suffering, and they are going to sue for punitive damages, everybody does. So let us see what happens. Economic damages, let us say she had medical bills of $200,000. Again, I am assuming that Mrs. Jones is really hurt. If she is really, really hurt, it is more than $200,000. But I am intentionally choosing a relatively low number, $200,000 economic damages. Now, let us assume that the jury awards Mrs. Jones $200,000 for pain and suffering. Mind you, it is very important to note this is not limited in this bill. Pain and suffering will not be limited so the jury is free to decide whatever they want. Mrs. Jones is really hurt and they give her $200,000 pain and suffering. She has $200,000 economic damages, $200,000 pain and suffering. Now we come to the only limit imposed in the bill and that is of course punitive damages. The jury is instructed and here is what they can do. They can give her 200 plus 200 times 2, would be the maximum that they could give in this case. So Mrs. Jones here will get $400,000 potentially in punitive damages. So she has gotten $200,000 economic damages, plus $200,000 pain and suffering, plus $400,000 punitive damages. I am sorry, plus $800,000. She has 200 plus 200 times 2, so that is $800,000 punitive damage amount. So Mrs. Jones can recover 200 plus 200 plus 800, which is $1.2 million. Now, that is a fair amount of money, but it does not really put Mrs. Jones back where she was, and we have to admit that. If she is really badly hurt, it is just a bad situation. She has gotten $1.2 million, but she would really rather not have the money. She would really rather have her health back. But we cannot put her health back, so we give her $1.2 million. That is our system operating rationally, I believe; $1.2 million for this hurt Mrs. Jones. Now mind you, there is still plenty of money for the trial lawyers, and I realize a lot of people in this body defend trial lawyers as though they are the greatest folks in America. There is still one-third for them, so in this case the trail lawyers get $400,000. There is still plenty of money in the system for adequate recovery.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2202, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, cross-references, the table of contents, and punctuation, and to make such stylistic, clerical, technical, conforming, and other changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from yielding time to me. There has been a fair amount of confusion on the floor here today about the thought process. One idea is we should support the troops by sending them there. The best way to support the troops is to keep them from going there. Then there was a statement about how we are there to wage peace. I have never seen it waged with tanks and guns and bullets. I think if you are going to wage peace, you do not send in the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army goes into places to crush, kill, and destroy. That is what they are real good at. I do not understand this idea of waging peace with tanks and weapons. If there is a peace, there is no need for peacekeepers. They have peace. If there is not a peace, then our people are peacemakers and that makes them, I think, combatants in a centuries-old civil war. Then there is the thought we have to contain the conflict. It is like world War II, we are told. Think again. World War II, two key differences: No. 1, a pernicious, expansionistic ideology that wanted to control the world. There is no pernicious, expansionistic ideology here. This is the normal inhumanity of man against man, normal hatred. It is around the globe. It is in Rwanda, it is in China, it is all over. No pernicious expansionistic ideology. The second key difference between World War II and now, in World War II we were not prepared. Now we are prepared. We learned after World War II you prepare for peace by preparing for war, and you stand ready with that strength under control. We can contain the conflict no matter where it goes in that region. The sober judgment we need to bring right now is very simple: Is there an American security interest at risk? I would submit, that is the threshold question before you send troops anywhere: Is there an American security interest at risk? Clearly there is not in the Balkans. The only way to send that message is to support the gentleman's alternative.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I suppose we are all prone to exaggeration at times, and as my colleagues know, sometimes in the political process, when we exaggerate for effect, that is, I suppose, the definition of [[Page H 13621]] demagoguery. I suppose we are all guilty of that at some point or another, but as my colleagues know, the consequences of demagoguery can be different depending on what the issue is. In the case of our side, maybe we demagogued a little bit on the President's tax increase of 1993, but do my colleagues know what? There were no people who really lost sleep about that; there were no people who went to bed at night wondering whether they were going to be able to make it. But there are people that are losing sleep because of what is being said, particularly at this other lectern, about Medicare. There are people likely a lady whose name I would not use who met with me recently at Wade's Restaurant in Spartenburg, SC, who was very worried about Medicare because of some of the things she has heard right here. But when I explained to her what is going to happen in Medicare and the fact that we are going to increase Medicare spending from $4,800 per person to $7,000 per person in the new numbers, she was greatly relieved. In fact, she is now convinced that this will work all right for her after hearing the full presentation. So I would really urge my colleagues to be very careful in this debate as we talk about the next several weeks about balancing this budget. There are some people that are very scared, and they are scared without reason because we are going to increase Medicare spending; and in fact, in the rest of the budget, what our colleagues see is we are spending more every year over the next 7 years. So all of those people out there, the scare groups are trying to scare to death, they are having their intended effect, and some people really are scared. But when they hear that we are actually going to increase spending to $12 trillion over the next 7 years, rather than watch it gallop off the cliff at $13.3 trillion, saving about $1.3 trillion over the next 7 years, we can actually balance the budget, and when they see those numbers, they go to sleep at night, and they have a good night of rest. I hope that we will tell them the truth in this Chamber.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise with tremendous compassion for the victims of abortions that are walking around today. There are a lot of them in America that did not know what was going on. But that compassion gives way to the facts, or should here on the floor, that a lot of Members who persist in talking about this being an unfortunate choice, but 80 percent, according to published reports, 80 percent of these abortions are done in an elective manner. Surely the facts will come out on this floor, and surely we can vote in support of this very excellent piece of legislation that will ban this procedure.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding this time to me, and I think everyone knows here, Mr. Chairman, that we have a problem. The problem is we spend more money than we have got. The American people know that, too, and they want a solution. Now the one or two ways to do it. One of the ways that was tried here in 1993, and that is the President's approach, is to raise taxes. But, as we have all discovered, the American people are paying about 50 cents out of every dollar they make in taxes. Federal, State, and local; we add it all up, and it is 50 cents out of every dollar they make. Therefore on this side we have concluded that is an unacceptable approach. We cannot raise taxes. In fact, in order to lessen that crushing burden we need to reduce taxes and allow people to keep more of what they have got. So, the only solution is the other one, and that is to cut spending. That is why I am excited about this reconciliation bill. It gives us the best opportunity we have had, in my time here surely, to get a handle on this problem and to deal with the fact that we are spending more money than we have got. Mr. Chairman, this bill has the welfare reform proposals that we so desperately need, it has Medicare proposals that will keep the system from going broke, it has the appropriations bills that are on budget target. The result of all that is that we will be on the path to balancing the budget in the year 2002, something the American people desperately want us to do. The only thing that I would urge my colleagues to avoid in all this process though is the danger of demagoguery, and there is a tremendous danger, we are all guilty of it at times on our side, maybe when we are talking about President Clinton's tax increase. They engage in a little bit of that on their side in this debate. There is a lot of demagoguery that scares a lot of people to death. There is only one difference: We did not scare many people that were well-to-do with a fear about a tax increase. But if my colleagues continue the demagoguery on Medicare, they are going to scare a whole lot of people to death out there in America that are very worried about how they are going to make it. We intend to save the program so that they can make it.