Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 534.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding naval officer, Capt. Dean O. Trytten, who is retiring from the U.S. Navy after 30 years of distinguished service. It is a pleasure to share with my colleagues just a few of his many accomplishments. Captain Trytten, raised in Lake Mills, IA, enlisted in the Navy in 1965 and was commissioned through the Navy's NESEP Program. He was selected for the Navy's NESEP Program while a student at Nuclear Power Training School in Windsor, CT. A dedicated student, Captain Trytten received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from North Carolina State University [NCSU]. Later, he returned to school, and in 1982 he earned his master of science in mechanical engineering from the naval post graduate school in Monterey, CA. Captain Trytten was also awarded the prestigious ``Top Snipe'' award at SWOS Department Head School. Captain Trytten's initial sea assignment was to the U.S.S. Cannole (DE 1056), where he served as main propulsion assistant. Subsequent sea tours included repair officer/engineering officer on the U.S.S. Portland (LSD 37), engineering officer on the U.S.S. Joseph Hewes (FF 1078) and maintenance manager/service life extension program [SLEP] coordinator on the U.S.S. Independence [CV 62]. During a period of rapidly changing force structures and declining resources, Captain Trytten served as ship superintendent at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for the SLEP of U.S.S. Forrestal [CV 59], repair officer at SIMA San Diego, force maintenance officer at COMNAVSURFPAC, ship modernization and maintenance branch head at OPNAV, and most recently distinguished himself through exceptional meritorious service as special assistant for quality at the NAVSEA Inspector General's Office. Captain Trytten has been awarded many decorations, including four Meritorious Service Medals, the Navy Commendation Medal, Battle Efficiency ``E'', Good Conduct, and two National Defense, Humanitarian Service, and Sea Service Medals. Captain Trytten's accomplishments during his service are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon him and the U.S. Navy. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Capt. Dean Trytten on this momentous occasion. As Captain Trytten retires to Greenville, SC, I take this opportunity to express my gratitude for his faithful and dedicated service to the U.S. Navy and wish him my sincerest best wishes upon his retirement.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Earlier in this debate, while I was in the Committee on the Judiciary, I understood there was some discussion of a project in my district involving a training stadium at Wofford College. I can tell the Members that I do not fault the people at Wofford for seeking that ARC funding, nor do I fault the Carolina Panthers for wanting to have the team training there. That has nothing to do with it. What I do fault, Mr. Chairman, is an old way of thinking here in the Congress among us as Members. Shame on us if we cannot move on with this revolution. Shame on us if we cannot think more creatively about how to solve these problems. The ARC has done some excellent work over the years. It was created long ago and did some great work. The problem with Federal programs is they never die. This is a time to bring this one to a nice death. It is good that the bill calls for a significant cut. I think it is time to take it straight to zero, though. The reason is we have to think more revolutionarily, if that is a verb or an adjective, I guess that was, or maybe it was an adverb, I am not sure. In any event, we have to think more revolutionarily about how to do this thing. Sure, it is good to get a grant every once in a while in our districts, but let us think that through. If we just got rid of the unfunded Federal mandates, how much money would there be in the State of South Carolina to deal with our needs? Tremendous amounts of money. This is the heart of the revolution. We have to start at both ends. We have to eliminate the Federal control through the unfunded Federal mandates, but then we have to stop looking at Uncle Sam as the great sugardaddy that is going to give us this free money from Washington to build a water system here or a road there. We have to think more creatively. We have to be able to see the whole revolution. The revolution involves downsizing this Federal Government, shrinking it to core business, and allowing the States to serve the functions that they can better serve. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no free money from Washington. This money that we are about to spend is going to go on to the deficit and be added onto the debt. Our children will be paying for this amount for years to come. We have a great opportunity here to complete this revolution, but do it from both ends. We have already taken action on unfunded Federal mandates. We need to go in and repeal some existing ones. The other part is right here, right now, on this amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, an excellent amendment. Let us just get rid of the ARC. Let us finally bring to an end a program that served a very useful life, but now its time has come. I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the best people to know how to allocate needs within South Carolina, I submit, are people in Columbia, people in Spartanburg, and Greenville. I daresay that not many of those folks would spend some of the money that has been spent the way ARC has spent their money. We create these programs, they fit those categories, and then the money is spent that way. What we have to do is be willing to think more creatively and say to the locals: ``You run it, you raised the money.'' Let us not have this pool of money that comes from Washington. I understand that the gentleman from Kentucky will likely tell me that it has been a local decision. I understand that. But it appears to be free money. That is the problem.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would point out, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] pointed out earlier, that the debate is a little bit stale. I think it is stale because the folks on the other side are missing two points. No. 1, they are missing the point that the American people do not believe that they are out to save the middle class. They realize that they define redistribution in such a way that everybody is wealthy in their book. The second reason is I think the American people realize it is time for us to do something. That is what we are doing on this side, and it is very exciting to be part of this historic effort to balance the budget over 7 years. [[Page H 6582]]

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Joey Hill, a winner of the South Carolina Voice of Democracy Broadcast scriptwriting contest in South Carolina. Joey Hill is the president of the student body at Southside High School in Greenville, SC. In this year, on the theme ``My Vision for America,'' Joey wrote this: ``I have a vision for America. I long to see gratitude return to the hearts of our citizens. Too often we always want to play the victim, the person to whom the world owes a great debt. Although pointing the finger is easy and maybe even a little fun, we will, after continued pointing, find the consequences too great to bear, so we must change, and the key to change is gratitude.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree with Joey, that this is a time of change. We do not need to blame others and claim entitlement for past debts. What we need, instead, is a little gratitude for what has been given us. I am very proud to congratulate Joey today, and to enter his speech in the Record of today's proceedings, as follows: My Vision for America ``It's too hard.'' ``It's not fair.'' ``I never get the good things in life.'' ``The grass on the other side gets greener and greener while useless stubble sprouts on my side of the fence.'' Complaining; it seems as if it comes natural to Americans. Of the many purposes for which words could be used, complaints tiptoe off our tongues most often and that fact reflects badly on us. We always want to play the victim, the person who is never in the wrong, the person to whom the world owes a great debt. Although pointing the finger is easy, and maybe even a little fun, we will, after continued pointing, find the consequences too great to bear. So we must change, and the key to changing is gratitude. I have a vision for America. I long to see gratitude return to the hearts of our citizens. We must be grateful to those persons who came before us, who paved a smooth, scenic way for us to travel on through life and we must take advantage of the blessings they have won for our sake. History is spotted with them. They are dubbed the movers and shakers--the somebodies. The people to whom the United States of America fall into unpayable debt. These persons struggled under the most uncompromising of trials to gain freedoms for this nation's citizens. Their names are many: Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Thurgood Marshall, Cesar Chavez, John Brown, Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Kennedy, Martin King, Malcolm X. Their voices spoke the same message, but in a myriad of ways. This message covered many topics: perseverance in the midst of a trial, retention of goodwill when the world gives you its worst, striving for excellence in the realm of education. These persons sincerely encouraged us to better ourselves. They gave us wisdom to live by. For example, Cesar Chavez stated to the world that ``the strongest act of manliness is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice.'' Susan B. Anthony tested our sincerity about the equality of women with her establishment of temperance organizations. And every American has heard of the labors of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--but many of Americans fail to understand the significance of his work. King courageously led a people who were punched, kicked, beaten, bitten by dogs, waterhosed, and murdered in some of the most inhumane ways so that we, the present day citizens of the United States of America--White, Black, Latino, Oriental, Indian, Native American--might be educated in the realm of culture; that we might not be discriminated against because of our culture.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment and in strong opposition to the Morella amendment, and to make three very brief points. First, I think we need to approach this, every time the word ``abortion'' is mentioned on this floor, with tremendous compassion for the victims of abortion that are walking around today. Unfortunately, most of us have had experience with abortion. Somewhere in the family there is somebody hurting from this tragedy of abortion. So every time it comes up on the floor, I think it is important to indicate compassion for those for whom this is a very painful memory. The question then becomes why would we export this pain to other countries? The second point I would like to make is, is it not wonderful to have a bipartisan discussion here? It is sort of a break here on the floor where you have Republicans and Democrats of good faith working together to restore the right policy created in 1984 under Ronald Reagan. The third point I would like to make is money is fungible. Any time you have funding for a program, the money is fungible. That means if the money comes to that program, yes, it may be restricted so that it cannot go directly to abortion services, but since money is fungible, it means it frees up other money of that program to go into the provision of those services. It is very important that we understand what is at stake here. We simply want to return to the Mexico City policy enunciated by President Reagan in 1984 that we will not use taxpayer funded dollars to fund any program in any foreign country that provides abortion services. So it is a very simple point here. What the Morella amendment would like to do is change that policy or actually preserve the now existing policy that we will fund those programs. I believe very strongly we should return to that Mexico City policy and not fund programs that provide abortion services.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. No. I do not agree.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. No; no, I do not.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, let me answer the gentleman. I really cannot figure out how you refer to our tax cut as a cost to the American people. We are allowing the American people to keep their money.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. It is a very important point. It is a very important difference between the philosophies that are represented here. The gentleman from West Virginia just described a tax cut as costing the American people money. This is a unique concept. In other words, he assumes that 100 percent of the American paycheck belongs to him, and the people who used to run this place, they assumed that he owns the paychecks of the people in the fourth District. I assume quite the opposite. I would point out to you that in quite contradistinction to your approach, we believe the American people own their paychecks. And we should own only such sums as we need to run the government.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting the gentleman from West Virginia just talked about how it is going to cost the American people to give a tax cut. I really do not understand that statement. I wonder if he would like to describe it for us. It is going to cost the American people to give them a tax cut? He says it is going to cost some hundreds of billions of dollars, but actually it is the other way around. When the gentleman from West Virginia voted for the Clinton tax increase in 1993, he increased taxes in the State of West Virginia by $356 million, $356 million in increased taxes the people of West Virginia will pay as a result of the gentleman's vote in favor of the Clinton tax increase. That costs the American people money. That is a tax increase.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute that is made in order under the rule.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we now come to the continuation of this historic debate on term limits. It is a very exciting day in America that we now have the opportunity to move on to real term limits and the opportunity to vote for term limits for the first time in the history of this country. Before we vote in this House on a real term limits proposal, the three that are about to come before us, let me make the point of what has happened out there in America in the States. Twenty-two States, now, in the United States have enacted term limits. Of those States, as you can see here colored on this chart, 15 have adopted 6-year term limits. Four have adopted 8-year term limits. And three have adopted 12-year term limits. Any of those is acceptable in my mind. Twelve years would be good if that is the one we end up with at the end of the day. Six years might be a little bit better, in my opinion, but the important thing is we pass term limits. It is important to note though if we are looking at what States have done that they have, a majority, adopted the 6-year approach. It is also something to point out that when asked, the American people apparently preferred the 6-year version. In fact, if you ask the American people which one they prefer, 82 percent prefer three terms, and six terms are preferred by 14 percent of the American people. This, I think, is consistent with most polls on the subject and accurately reflects the view of most people that 6 years is about right. Others are a little bit longer. But now that we have gotten that out of the way and I have advocated at least on the 6-year bill, let me make a very important point to all of my colleagues here. We just had a vote on which 135 people voted for retroactive application of term limits. I will now expect in honesty and truth in legislating for every one of those 135 to vote for final passage, whether it is my bill or whether it is the Hilleary approach or whether it is the approach offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. Because I will assure you whichever one comes forward as the will of this House I will support. I will not insist on six. I think it is a little bit better. But I am happy to vote for one of the 12-year proposals. So I particularly would hope that those on the Democratic side, the 81 that just voted for a retroactive application of term limits, as this House works its will, that you will vote with us on final passage. We need your help to get 290 votes. We have an opportunity. If every one of those 81 come with us, we will have term limits at the end of the night, and I look forward to that day. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I would rise to make two observations. First, it is very important for everyone to realize that every single person speaking in favor of this particular substitute is opposed to term limits with the exception, I believe, of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. Every other person who has spoken is against term limits. That makes an important point. In fact, with all due respect to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], earlier I asked him on the floor to yield and he was gracious enough to yield. And he told me he is absolutely opposed to term limits. Certainly he is opposed to term limits. Very important point to make. Folks that are proposing this amendment are adamantly opposed to term limits. So let us make it clear what they are trying to do.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I saw you were not listening when I mentioned you as the one person that I knew of at the time. Now I understand there are two more.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. That makes three that I know now that support term limits that are for this substitute. Every other one is opposed, am I not correct? Name another one.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a very important point to make, though, with all due respect, that one of the chief authors of this, and I think everyone who has spoken on the floor, with the few exceptions you have named by name, are adamantly and fundamentally opposed to term limits. So it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on here. This is designed to be a poison pill in two ways. The point is, it is a poison pill for the Senate and for the State legislatures. It is very important that we defeat this substitute. There is another important point to make here. That is, we are talking here about the Democratic alternative. I see my good friend from Massachusetts here, the batter on deck, to get ready to speak. I would point our that we needed to have more Republican votes. It is a very interesting situation here. Eighty percent of the American people favor term limits; 80 percent of the Republican conference favors term limits and will vote for it today. If the Democratic caucus would simply vote by the same margins and represent America, we would have term limits by the end of the day. But the fact is the Democratic caucus will not represent America at the end of the day. They will not vote by an 80-percent margin for term limits. We will. You will not. As a result, we will not have term limits. It is very important that we actually come forward and produce the votes. We need votes on your side for term limits today. Vote in proportion to the American people, 80 percent of you, vote for term limits and we will have it by the end of the day. We will be way over the 290 margin.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise today to mark this historic occasion of finally having the opportunity to discuss, debate, and vote on term limits on the floor of the House of Representatives. What a wonderful day it is. After a long time working for this, we finally get the opportunity. It is a great thing. What a difference an election can make. In the last Congress we had a Speaker who sued us in the State of Washington to prevent us from enacting term limits. This time we have a Speaker who is working with us to bring this to a vote. I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to point out the basic case for term limits and then to answer several of the objections. First, the basic case: The average American, as the Members can see here by my chart, keeps his or her job 6 years. The average Member of Congress keeps his or her job 8 years. That is not terribly long, and a lot of speakers will point out that some 200 Members are relatively new. But here is the critical statistic: The average Members of the leadership who we all know run this place have kept their jobs for an average of 22 years. This tells the story of why we need term limits. Let me point out another chart that tells the story of why we need term limits. Of course, we had all this discussion, and we will hear plenty of it today from the opponents of term limits, about the fact that we have had such a massive turnover in this body. But let us ask where the turnover came from. The turnover came from open seat elections. Relatively few Members have lost their attempts to be elected, and let me show that to the Members by this chart. In 1990, 96 percent of those who wanted to come back came back. In 1992, it went down a little bit. 88 percent of those who wanted to come back came back. In 1994, the election that got us this management change, and I am very thankful, as I just stated, for that management change, because now we have an opportunity to debate term limits, 90 percent of those of us who wanted to come back were reelected. That I think tells the story of a permanent Congress, a Congress that becomes out of touch with the people back home. Now, about the issue of what the States have done, as you can see here, some 22 States have decided to limit terms. That I think is an indication of the strength of support out there and why it is that this is finally long overdue and now thankfully on the floor of the House of Representatives. In the time that remains, let me address a couple of the major objections to term limits. First, the bureaucracy will run the place. Let me ask the other Members of Congress today to address this question. If you are talking civil servants, there is no way a Member of Congress can deal with a civil servant. How about your personal staff and how many do you have on your staff? I have got 15, and 2 part-time folks. The people at home direct a whole lot of people. In small businesses they may have 100 people they direct. In big corporations they may have thousands of people they direct. So we cannot make too much of our job here. relatively small operation. There are only 15 or so in our offices, 18 if you have the full complement and spending all the taxpayers' money and 4 part-time people. It is a small operation. Let us be honest. So the bureaucracy, you cannot control the civil servants now, except by controlling their appropriations. You can control your own office, because there are so few people in there. Now, second objection: We are going to lose talent. How are we going to lose the talent? If a talented Member of this House wants to run for Governor, nobody in the term limit effort begrudges them that. We would encourage them to run for Governor. If a talented Member of the Senate wants to run for President, we encourage them to run for President. We are not going to lose the talent; we are going to redirect it. All the folks we are hearing about we are going to lose, they might be the President of the United States if we forced them out of here, or might be a great Senator, or maybe a Governor. We will force them over there. The third objection that my good friend just mentioned speaking before me is do not tell my people who they can vote for. Do not limit their choices. Well, who are you speaking for? Eighty percent of the American people want term limits. They told you that. They tell you every town meeting. They tell you in every poll taken in your district. Who are you speaking for? The 20 percent? They are giving you a message. They want to limit you. They are just being fairly polite about it by not telling you to your face, but they are telling you in every opinion poll 80 percent of us want term limits. So when you stand here and say do not tell my people how they cannot reelect me, they are trying to tell you they do not want to reelect you after a period of time.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would make two points, observations, if you could underscore them. One, am I correct you are opposed to term limits?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, one of the arguments made here today is it takes experience and a while to get used to this House. It should be pointed out that the gentleman who just yielded me time is a sophomore, as I am, and he is already a subcommittee chairman, doing an excellent job as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. There goes the argument for experience. Let me make this point: Here is the observation that was made time and again here today by those who defend the current order. They say to us that this experience is what we need. We need people of experience here. What I do not think the incumbents here are getting yet is that the American People say, ``Experience at what? Experience at what? Balancing the budgets?'' We are $4.7 trillion in debt. The gentleman who came earlier with a long list of longtime incumbents, I ask, where were they when we ran up a debt of $4.7 trillion? Experience at what? Balancing budgets? Maybe experience at running a savings-and-loan system that, because of the decision made in this body, created a savings-and-loan disaster. Now, not the scapegoats, let us be honest, not the scapegoats; the people who defrauded the savings-and-loans, not those folks. The decision here to increase the insured limit from $40,000 to $100,000. Experience at what? Running a good business? I would say, rather than those kind of experienced people, what we need is an experienced businessman or woman at home who has balanced a budget year after year after year in their business. If they come here, maybe they can do a better job. You know what? The arrogance of this place is showing today. The arrogance of Members who would say, ``I am indispensable. You can't get rid of me.'' The American people are saying that is what we want to do, ``We want to get rid of you, but we can't because you have such enormous war chests. We can't because you have name identification higher then anybody in the district.'' They say, ``We want to get rid of you.'' That is what they are telling us in these term limits. I also point out, what about the argument about the careerists, the argument of Mr. Hyde? I point out that we are not here looking for a brain surgeon. If I were looking for a brain surgeon, I would agree, I would go to the most experienced guy or go to the most experienced lady. But I must say, that is not what we are looking for. We are looking for somebody to represent us here. I would submit to you that experience runs exactly contrary to representation. Experience here means experience at the PAC game, getting PAC money, more and more and more. So, more and more seniority so you can do the deals; more and more experience in this body removes you from the people out there. They want you to go home. They want you to run for something else if you choose, but submit yourselves to that risk. Do not stay here in an insulated situation where you can time and again return to this place and, contrary to what the gentleman from Illinois said about his challenger being at home sipping brandy,I must say to you I ran against an incumbent in 1992. And while she was sitting home, I was down at the office doing billable hours between 12 a.m. and 3 and 4 a.m. To make up the billable hours because I did not have the luxury that we have here of running so hard. And let us be honest, that is what we do; we run full-time. We have a job that enables us to go to butchershop openings, as the chairman says, and to that meeting where we can speak to hundreds of people. A challenger does not have that. A challenger has to make a living while running for Congress against an entrenched incumbent with all his advantages. announcement by the chairman