[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10368-S10369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE 1994 ELECTION MANDATE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I sat presiding in the chair listening 
intently as the Senator from Utah talked about the mandate, as he 
understood it, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992.
  As one who was elected 2 years later, in 1994, that mandate was not 
quite the same. It was interesting that those individuals who are 
talking about term limits did not really address the fact that we have 
a problem, in that we have the same leadership within each party in the 
U.S. Senate, as they were concerned about the term limits of 
individuals serving in the House and in the Senate.
  Maybe it is unique to my State of Oklahoma that we had such an 
intense interest in the fact that people should come here as citizens, 
serve for a period of time, and then go home and serve under the laws 
that they passed. It seems as if the term limits debate has become very 
silent now. I have decided that one reason is that they felt if we had 
such a turnover, as we had in both Houses of Congress this last time, 
maybe people do not think that there is a need for term limitation 
anymore. But I saw a poll that was taken yesterday. I saw the poll that 
was taken last week, and I was shocked to find out that 72 percent of 
the American people have very strong feelings about limiting the terms 
in which Members of the House and Members of the Senate can serve.
  I did not expect this because I have heard so many people around the 
beltway--which is not really real America--say we do not need it 
anymore because we know now that we can flesh things out and get new 
blood.
  I think that the poll, as it was interpreted, says that people like 
what happened on November 8, 1994, but they are not real sure that they 
want to wait 20 years for the same thing to happen again. We are, 
indeed, better off to have people here who have been in the real world.
  I got to thinking about the arguments, since I was the one who 
proposed term limits many, many years ago. When I was running for 
office, I stated I would do everything I could--the same as the Senator 
from Utah said he would do everything he could--to see to it that the 
terms of leadership would be limited. I made that same commitment to 
continue the effort to limit terms.
  I observed something when I was first elected to the U.S. House of 
Representatives. I have to say, Mr. President, that I am a truly 
blessed individual. I decided 35 years ago, when all my kids were grown 
and the runt of my litter was out of college and off doing her thing, 
that I would do what I always wanted to do and run for Congress. That 
happened in 1986.
  When I arrived in Congress, I found something that shocked me. That 
is, that the prevailing ideas and mentality of those who are in power 
in Congress was totally alien to what people outside the beltway 
thought.
  For example, I categorize the thinking of Congress, the majority of 
Congress who are making the decisions, who are setting the agenda, who 
are carrying on the debate, into four categories, what they really 
believe. First, in terms of crime, they really believed that punishment 
was not a deterrent to crime. In the second area, they believed that 
government, in concert with Congress, can run the lives of the people 
of America better than people could in the private sector. They believe 
that the cold war is coming to an end. Of course, subsequently it was 
ended, and therefore it is not necessary to put more money in our 
Nation's defense. That money should go into social programs. They felt 
that deficit spending is not bad public policy.
  When we stop to think about those four areas, almost everything, at 
least that this Member, former Member of the House experienced, found 
very offensive, fell into one of those four categories. People felt, as 
far as the deficit is concerned, they said, ``Well, we are all right on 
the deficit. We are not concerned about that. After all, we owe it to 
ourselves,'' without realizing everything we are spending today we are 
borrowing not from anyone who is here in this Chamber today or in the 
gallery, or even those who may be watching, but the future generations, 
such as my three grandchildren. They are the ones who will pay for all 
this fun we are having up here.
  Every time we try to cut some of the fat out of government, cut a 
social program, the people stand up with bleeding hearts and talk about 
how can we do this to those poor people who need these programs. Right 
now, we are in the middle of, and we are reminded that all we are 
trying to do is take the profit out of illegitimacy, and get people 
more responsible for their own acts.
  Insofar as the defense is concerned, I am embarrassed to stand here 
and say we are operating with a budget right now that is less than the 
budget that we are spending on social welfare programs, when we combine 
State and Federal programs. We are operating on a defense budget that 
is less than it was in 1980, when we had hollow forces, when we could 
not afford spare parts. We all remember. It is all in the history. Yet, 
some believe that the threat that is out there today is greater than 
the threat that we were facing during the cold war.
  At least during the cold war, Mr. President, we could identify who 
the enemy was. There were two superpowers. So we knew who it was.
  Right now, in accordance with comments made not by conservative 
Republicans, like I am, but by Democrats, Jim Woolsey, who is the Chief 
Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, 
said that we know there are between 20 and 25 nations that have 
developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction. They are all 
developing the means to deliver those weapons of mass destruction. We 
have the Saddam Hussein's and the Qadhafi's, and those out there able 
and willing to buy technology that is on the market.
  Here we are, with a group of people who really believe that there was 
not any threat out there, when the vast majority of the people of 
America who voted in the elections in November of 1994 said, ``Yes, we 
need a strong national defense.''
  Government and its relationship to our lives in 1987, when I first 
got to the U.S. Congress, the majority of people in leadership really 
believed that the only thing wrong with America was we did not have 
enough government regulation. We needed more government regulation. 
When, in fact, that is exactly what is the problem.
  Why did these individuals believe these things? They believed these 
things because many of them had come straight from the fraternity house 
to Congress--never been out in the real world, never exposed to real 
people. So they completely lost touch.
  That is what precipitated what I refer to as the revolution of 
November 8, 1994, when we had the greatest turnover in contemporary 
history. People finally decided, whether they are Democrats or 
Republicans, back in the real world, that they wanted to make major 
changes in government as we know it.
  Here we are with the reregulation bill that is right now kind of on 
high center. All we are trying to do is say to the people who voted in 
new people in Congress, ``Yes, we heard you, loud and clear. We are 
going to get rid of this overregulated society.''
  Someone on a radio talk show not long ago, in fact, the No. 1 radio 
talk show in America, the host said if you want to compete with the 
Japanese, export our regulations to Japan and we will be competitive 
with the Japanese. 

[[Page S10369]]

  We truly are an overregulated society. I have told this story many 
times, people that I know back in my State of Oklahoma. A guy name 
Keith Carter, in Skiatook, OK, invented a spray that you put on horses, 
and apparently it works. Whatever it does, it must work, because he had 
four employees, and a couple years ago they moved to a larger place 
down the street from his house, still in Skiatook, OK. He called me up, 
4 days before Christmas--this was 2 years ago--and he said, 
``Congressman Inhofe''--at that time I was in the House of 
Representatives--he said, ``The EPA came along and put me out of 
business.'' I said, ``What did you do wrong?''
  ``When I moved down the street 2 years ago, I forgot to notify 
Washington and the EPA that I had moved.'' I said, ``You mean they did 
not know where you were?'' He said, ``I notified the regional office, 
but they did not tell Washington.''
  So we got it taken care of. He called back a little later, and he 
said, ``I appreciate all you did for me, and you got me back in 
business, but now I have another problem. I have $25,000 worth of 
bottled spray produced during the 2 weeks I was revoked that they say I 
cannot use.''
  This is the type of overregulation we have in society today. I think 
the re-regulation bill is going to come out. I think the people of 
America will have to speak up again and let them know, let Members 
know, that they are still interested in reducing the abusive role of 
government as we have come to know it today.
  Mr. President, term limits is a very real thing today, and just 
because we made some major turnovers does not mean that we should not 
continue the good thing that happened in 1994. A lot of people say, 
``Well, you cannot do that; you are taking away my constitutional right 
to vote for someone as I see fit.'' It was not very long ago when we 
had to impose term limits on the President of the United States. And it 
has worked very well since then.
  We could use the same arguments. Well, you have taken away my right 
to vote for someone who has already served two complete terms. Almost 
every State in the Union right now has term limits on its Governors. 
The vast majority of the States that have the petition process, the 
initiative process, were able to either vote in or through an 
initiative and impose term limits on themselves. However, the U.S. 
Supreme Court came along and said, ``No, you cannot do that.'' So it 
can only be done, to be effective and endure the future generations, is 
to do it with the constitutional amendment.
  I intend to continue in that fight. I believe that the message is 
loud and clear. There are a lot of messages that came out of the 
elections.
  I mentioned that the majority of people who had been operating 
without term limits and have been here since they graduated from 
college and did not have experience in the real world, that they 
honestly did not believe that punishment was a deterrent to crime.
  Senator Richard Shelby, from Alabama, and I introduced a bill that 
would change our prison system and put the work requirements back in. 
People say, ``How cruel can you be, because these people are poor 
products of society, and it is not their fault they did something that 
is wrong.
 You should not be punishing them.''

  There is an article, Mr. President, you ought to read. It was in last 
November's Readers Digest. It says, ``Why Must Our Prisons Be 
Resorts?'' And it talks about the new golf courses that they are 
putting in next to the polo field, or next to the boccie courts. 
Whatever that is. And how we are going to have to take care of--they do 
not even call them prisoners anymore in some prisons, they call them 
clients, because they do not want to offend them.
  I may be old fashioned in my thinking. I think punishment has 
deterred crime. I think history showed that. When we passed the soft-
on-crime bill, the omnibus crime bill of 1994, that was the midnight 
basketball and dancing lessons and all that, the American people were 
offended by that and those individuals who voted for that bill, most of 
them, were voted out of office in November 1994. It was just another 
one of those areas where, if you had been inside the beltway listening 
to people around here, you forget what the real people at home are 
thinking. Because it is a different mentality here in Washington, DC.
  I do not think that Oklahoma is unique in that respect. I will share 
an experience that will offend, I think, some of the people here. But 
it is something that happened to me.
  The State of Oklahoma is, by registration, a very strong Democrat 
State. But the Democrats in the State of Oklahoma are very 
conservative. They are unlike the Democrats that we have here in 
Washington. I had an experience down in McCurtain County. McCurtain 
County in Oklahoma, Mr. President, is what we call severe little Dixie. 
There are not any Republicans. They are all Democrats. I remember being 
down there in the campaign and my opponent was an incumbent, the same 
as I was, an incumbent from the House, both running for the Senate, so 
we each had records.
  I remember someone standing up in a meeting of about 45 people in 
McCurtain County. I was the only Republican who was in that room that 
day, including a New York Times reporter who was following me around. 
Someone stood up in far southeastern Oklahoma, where there are not any 
Republicans, and said ``Inhofe, you are going to be the first 
Republican to carry McCurtain County since statehood, the State of 
Oklahoma statehood in 1907.'' I said, ``Why is that?'' He said, 
``Because of the three G's.'' He said, ``God, gays, and guns.''
  Let us look at what they were really saying. He said school prayer 
was an issue in southeastern Oklahoma--school prayer, gays in the 
military was an issue, and gun control was an issue. During deer 
season, they closed schools. These are real people. These are not the 
kind of people you find around the beltway. And this gets right back to 
the whole idea of term limits.
  I really, honestly, believe in my heart that we would not have a lot 
of the problems that we have had since the 1960's about the role of 
Government in our lives, we would not have the huge deficits we find 
ourselves with--if we do not change our spending behavior, a person who 
is born today is going to have to spend 82 percent of his or her 
lifetime income just to service Government. And this is what we are 
going to change.
  So I believe the term limit debate is going to be revived again, even 
if I am the one who has to revive it, because I think the vast majority 
of Americans honestly and sincerely in their hearts believe that those 
of us in Congress should someday have to go out and make a living under 
the laws we passed. The only way to ensure that is if we have 
limitation of terms.
  Early in this country's history it was not necessary. We had people 
who came in and they could only afford to be here for a short period of 
time. They did their patriotic duty and they went back and lived with 
the laws they passed. I think that is exactly what is coming back to 
America and it is going to serve my grandchildren and all of America 
very well.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________