Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, but hopeful that we can make it even a little bit better. The thrust of the bill is clearly a good idea. We need a national registration for sex offenders. We need to make it with teeth, and that is why I support the underlying bill. There is, however, this issue of mandatory minimums in the bill. I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I have said there that I am more uncomfortable than ever with our use of mandatory minimums. We have a coherent system of sentencing called the sentencing guidelines. We have people who thought very carefully about how it would be that rape, for example, would compare with bank robbery and how that would compare with cashing bad checks, and so they came up with a system. Into that system have come some reactions from Congress to particularly heinous crimes. The result is sort of a patchwork of mandatory minimums that disrupt the coherent system established by the sentencing guidelines. So here today we have a bill before us that has a particularly dangerous mandatory minimum when it comes to the situation of someone failing to register. Now, I think it is pretty confusing when you move from State to State. In fact, it is quite often the case that you send your possessions on ahead in a moving van; and the question is when did you move from California to Ohio, was it when the moving van got there, or was it when you took the first flight from California to Ohio, but then you returned to California to get the rest of your possessions and drove back. When did you move to Ohio? Under this bill as it is right now, if you fail to register, you have a mandatory minimum. I think the mandatory minimum in this case is particularly inappropriate. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is a 5-year mandatory minimum. So the hypothetical I just posed of somebody moving from California to Ohio, the moving truck is there, they fly out twice to Ohio, and finally they are moved, if they do not register in a timely fashion, and it is a very brief time they have to register, then what happens is they must go off to jail for 5 years. This is somebody who has not committed another offense. If they commit another offense, there are mandatory minimums that handle that. This is a failing to register, which is an important thing. It is very important that we register, but it seems to me that this is a classic case of where we should give judges discretion within the sentencing guidelines to deal with exactly the hypothetical I have just described. Let the judge decide, well, the person actually did move to Ohio on that second trip and when they moved, they failed to register. But maybe they had an appendectomy. If they did, give them some time, give them some grace because they were clearly attempting to comply with the law. On the other hand, the judge could hear this person was not attempting to comply with the law. They were flouting the layout; and if they were, he gives them some time. The amendment here would simply strike the 5-year minimum and make it so that it could be up to a maximum of 20 years. So a judge could still send the flagrant violator, the person who has failed to register, off to jail for a good long time because registration is crucial to the underlying nature of this bill. So I support the bill, and I hope that we can improve it by eliminating what could be manifest injustice with a mandatory minimum that is unchangeable by a judge, a judge who can see the circumstances. Of course that requires some trust in the judges, but I am thinking we can do that. At least in South Carolina, we have good judges, judges who make decisions that seem to be consistent with the spirit of this law. If jurisdictions have judges who do not do that, perhaps there should be some pressure brought to bear on these judges and, in fact, impeachments if those judges consistently violate the sentencing guidelines. But let us let the system work; let us let the Constitution work and respect the judiciary and respect the competence of the people that the U.S. Senate confirms. We have a confirmation hearing going on right now where we are confirming, I hope, somebody who is clearly a capable jurist. When he is on that Court, we should defer to him because he is a coequal branch of the Federal Government. So my amendment is very simple. It strikes the mandatory minimum in the case of failing to register. I hope my colleagues will support it.

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

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I agree exactly with what the gentleman just said, and that is why I am voting for the underlying bill. But the gentleman said earlier that this is some kind of voluntary registration. There is nothing voluntary about this. We, in strong action here, are requiring exactly the person he just described to register, and we say to them they must register within the prescribed period. There is no voluntary nature to that. That is a strong and good law. That is what we are doing here. The question is whether we can trust the sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Commission and Federal judges to come up with a system to figure out whether that person that the gentleman is describing, flagrantly violating it, should go off for 20 years as opposed to the hypothetical that I posed as somebody in confusion about when exactly they moved, let us say, from California to Florida, as to whether that case deserves a mandatory minimum of 5 years. Because what we are doing here, if this amendment fails, is tying the hands of that judge in Ohio such that he must or she must send the person off for 5 years if there was confusion about when and how they moved to the State of Ohio. It may be somebody who did not flagrantly violate. It was just confusion as to when they moved. And if we have sentencing guidelines and judges that follow those guidelines, if they do not, put pressure on them and then impeach them.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I had real doubts about CAFTA as it started. In particular, representing a textile district, there were three specific concerns. And the very exciting thing is that this House really went to work to fix those. I am looking at the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), who has worked very hard with us, along with Rob Portman, USTR, to address those concerns. Three of them: one was pockets and linings. That is important only if one comes from a district that makes pockets and linings, I suppose. Another was Mexican cumulation. And then a third was the Nicaraguan TPL. In working through Rob Portman's office and through the chairman, we were able to get some progress on those, some commitments for some supplemental agreements, some implementation agreements that will address those concerns and go a long way toward fixing the problem in the textile world. It is not perfect. There are some still in textile districts that are not sure. But I stand here tonight certain that CAFTA is a wise Western Hemisphere strategy. I stand here convinced that it is the best strategy available to combine with our neighbors to the south to compete with the Chinese. If I am concerned, and I am concerned, about the future of the textile industry in competition with China, the best way that I see to fix that is to combine with our neighbors to the south. So I particularly call on those from textile districts to consider is there a better strategy. This is the best strategy available. Let us vote for CAFTA. Let us pass it and get on with this good strategy.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome to the House Dr. Jerry White, the president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention and our guest chaplain this morning. Jerry has been preaching since the age of 13, pastoring for 33 years, 24 of those years in South Carolina, the last 7 at Riverside Baptist Church in Greer, South Carolina. His wife Janet and his father are here with us today. They have two sons, and, maybe most significantly, a brand new baby granddaughter. Jerry's favorite hymn is Amazing Grace. His life verse is Philippians 4:13, ``I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.'' Truly the two work together because one of the stanzas of Amazing Grace is, ``Twas grace that taught my heart to fear and grace my fears relieved.'' That is what enables people like Jerry to pastor as they do, realizing that it is grace that causes them to be able to do all things through Christ who strengthens them. We thank him for offering the prayer this morning, and we welcome him to the House.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise reluctantly because rarely do I oppose a majority bill. In this case, however, as I expressed in the Committee on the Judiciary, I think there are three problems with the bill: First, it federalizes State crimes. Second, it spends too much money. Third, it has mandatory minimums. I voted for mandatory minimums a number of times in my previous time in Congress, and then I had 6 years out, six years out to talk with people in the community, to talk with judges. And during that time, I became very uncomfortable with our approach about mandatory minimums. We have sentencing guidelines. The idea of those guidelines is to have a coherent system of sentencing, some method of figuring out how heinous one crime is compared to another. And then Congress comes along and slaps on mandatory minimums on top of that framework, doing violence to the framework of a sentencing guideline system. I think it is a mistake. Like I say, I voted for them in the past. I will not do it again. I am inclined to say, let us have a sentencing guideline system that works. Let us not, because of some political considerations, rise and go after say crack cocaine as opposed to powdered cocaine and end up with perverse results, which is somebody rotting in jail because they smoked the wrong kind of cocaine. It is an unjust result. It is something we should resolve in this body to avoid. I think we have an opportunity to improve this bill. I will be supporting some of the amendments the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) will be offering. It is another opportunity to try to improve it. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am excited about the work that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is doing on the Science Committee and for the innovations that I think that we can together bring about and can encourage from here in the Congress. I am happy to be part of this Special Order to talk about what could be part of our future. In particular, the aspect that I want to focus on is cars and to have us think about what cars could be in the future. We are bound now by burning petroleum in our cars. We are bound to lethal accidents where people traveling at a high rate of speed end up being killed because cars crash together, blowouts on tires or whatever cause them to have crashes. What I am excited about is imagining a completely different future, one that has smart cars, has fuels of the future; smart cars that know their position relative to other cars on the road by sensors and by automatic braking systems that take over for the driver, that make it so that a computer is actually driving the car. That for many people sounds like science fiction, but it really is not that far away. I think it is very interesting that Bill Gates was here recently and spoke with members of the Intellectual Property Caucus and opined that it is not a question of if; it is a question of when we get smart cars. He said in the future, there will be no accidents. Of course, it might not be wise to bet against Bill Gates when it comes to technology issues. While we were waiting, a colleague of ours pointed out that if you had invested $10,000 in a company called Microsoft in 1980, it would be worth $25 million today. So it is not a good idea to bet against Bill Gates when it comes to technology. What we have, I think, is the opportunity to dream that big, to think of a car totally differently, that it could run itself, that you get in it and it is not so much a steering wheel as it is a computer screen. Unless we think this is far away, think of the blue screen tracker system that is right now deployed in Iraq on the vehicles that we have got over there and so that our men and women know where they are, where their unit is, relative to other units. That is updated every few seconds. The technology, in other words, is not far away. It is on the ground right now in the blue screen tracker system, and it is not far away, in my opinion, for the car. If you think about what that means, it means compression on the highways. It means that you do not have to have the spacing that we have now, where cars in order to be safe should be driving a fair distance from each other at 60 or 70 miles an hour. As it is, we have got to have a lot of asphalt on the ground to accommodate that many cars traveling at that rate of speed. But if they are smart cars, they can be within relatively few feet of each other, traveling at significant speeds but knowing where one is relative to the other. That seems like science fiction, but consider this: a number of auto manufacturers, including BMW which makes X5s and Z4s in Spartanburg, South Carolina, are working on braking systems that actually take over the braking decision for the driver. BMW will release a car very soon that does just that. It has a braking system that decides for you when it should apply the brake and keeps you from hitting something. So if you think about that, the breakthroughs that we are going to get in cars, the compression on the highways, braking systems that make those decisions for you, the ability to get in a car, program it to go somewhere, say from here to Baltimore, take your hands off the wheel, read the newspaper, the productivity gains in the economy are very exciting. There are some very exciting things there now. The key to that is a new energy system, too, one that hopefully will emit only water as you travel, say, from here to Baltimore. That is what the hydrogen economy could promise for us. That is why I am very excited about producing that hydrogen and figuring out how to store it and distribute it. Those are, of course, as I understand it, the three big challenges, producing it, storing it, and distributing it. Producing it, as one of our colleagues just mentioned, could be in various ways. Perhaps by concentrating enough energy from the sun, sunlight into a spot to reach temperatures to crack water. And I heard the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Ehlers) Special Order a week or so ago about nuclear, and we seem to be of the same opinion that nuclear seems to be one of the more promising ways at this point to crack water. A reactor built for that purpose cannot only generate electricity but can also generate the heat necessary to crack the water. And the beauty, of course, of that is, rather than cracking natural gas, which produces C02, cracking water would create no C02, and we would have this wonderful operation that creates electricity plus heat, cracks water, creates hydrogen, and we have got a stable source of fuel. So production is crucial in envisioning this future that I am talking about here. Second is the ability to store it, to store this hydrogen. A lot of issues there about whether to try to store it in a gaseous state or whether to cool it and try to get it to a liquid state or whether to have some breakthroughs with metal hydrides and determine a way to store it in a solid state. Those are some areas that we need work on, and the gentleman from Michigan can add to that, I think. And then the third area where we need breakthroughs is how to distribute it, how to set up either pipelines or some other system of distributing this fuel. If we can crack those things, get at producing, storing, and distributing hydrogen, I believe that we are going to be there, not forever away. One of our colleagues who is not so inclined to believe that this is all going to happen once told me, ``Yes, that will work maybe for your grandchildren.'' Well, I think this is going to be here before my grandchildren, and it had better be because, as we have been hearing tonight, we are running out of this stuff called petroleum, and we have got a lot better things to do than burn it. We can make pharmaceuticals. We can make plastics. We can do a lot better things. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to share these dreams of the future that may seem like some watching dreamers, but that is how we got to the moon. That is how we get breakthroughs. We have got to be about it and here in the Congress fund it, fund good research on these things, spend good money to create these breakthroughs. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, be advised that this resolution is to express appreciation to the Greenville SAFE KIDS Coalition for ten years of distinguished service to the state of South Carolina and our Nation in its work to protect children from unintentional childhood injuries. Whereas, only a decade ago, Greenville was much less safe for children. Eighty percent of kids rode their bicycles without helmets. About 40 percent of older children traveled in motor vehicles without using a safety belt and countless younger kids did not ride in approved car seats. One in five families went to sleep each night without the benefit of a smoke alarm. In fact, unintentional childhood injury was the leading killer of children 14 and under in Greenville in 1994. To address what was a little-recognized problem Greenville SAFE KIDS Coalition was created. Whereas, I am pleased to report that since the inception of the Greenville SAFE KIDS Coalition, there has been a dramatic 24 percent decline in the unintentional injury death rate among children 14 and under. The combined efforts of Greenville SAFE KIDS Coalition, under the leadership of Greenville Hospital System's Children's Hospital, have led to remarkable achievements in preventing childhood death and injury. The Coalition's multifaceted effort includes public awareness, education, distribution of safety devices, enactment and enforcement of laws, and a grassroots partnership program that embodies the countywide strategy that accounts for the progress. Whereas, in 10 years, there has been a 50 percent decline in the child pedestrian injury death rate, a 10 percent decline in the child motor vehicle related death rate, a 34 percent decline in the death rate from childhood drowning, a 53 percent decline in the death rate from bicycle injuries and a 56 percent decline in the residential fire- related injury death rate. Unfortunately, even with these impressive advances, unintentional injury is still the number one killer of Greenville's children. Each year, more than 10 children die and more than 8,000 are injured seriously enough to require medical attention. That is a staggering one of four children. The program works with Emergency Rooms, physicians, schools, and Greenville County's Child Fatality Review Task Force to track trends on how and why injuries occur. Programs are then developed in specific injury areas to increase awareness and ultimately prevent injuries. Examples of their activities include assisting high risk families in obtaining smoke detectors, hosting monthly car seat inspections, distributing thousands of bike helmets, and teaching children about home safety through the nationally recognized Buddy's Home Improvement House. Whereas, Greenville SAFE KIDS first-ever ``Progress Report on Preventing Unintentional Injuries'' tracks a decade of work in prevention. It presents a detailed picture of the particular risks that kill and disable more children than disease, homicide or suicide. This report also maps out a strategy for the next 10 years and issues specific calls to action across injury areas. Whereas, in their 10th anniversary year, Greenville SAFE KIDS Coalition looks forward to continued growth through strategic partnerships with sponsors, health professionals, schools, legislators, industry and sister communities. Through these partnerships, Greenville SAFE KIDS will lead important advocacy initiatives that will result in safer environments for children at home, at school, at play and on the way. Greenville SAFE KIDS Coalition remains committed to reducing unintentional childhood injuries and keeping children out of GHS Children's Hospital. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: That all members encourage parents, caregivers, schools, business leaders, legislators and health professionals to make preventing unintentional childhood injuries a priority and to continue supporting the efforts of Greenville SAFE KIDS Coalition to save and protect the lives of our children. Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Greenville SAFE KIDS, South Carolina SAFE KIDS and National SAFE KIDS.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman of the Committee on Science. We have an opportunity to do better. I hope that we do better as we improve the hydrogen title of this bill. Perhaps the other body will have a title that will work a little bit better in the hydrogen area, and I hope that we will catch the vision of a different way of getting around. Imagine that one takes delivery today in Spartanburg, South Carolina of a brand new BMW. It runs on hydrogen. It is powered and controlled by a computer, maybe made by IBM, maybe software by Microsoft. These are companies committed to making hydrogen and to making smart cars work. They get in the car, they program it to go somewhere, they take their hands off the wheel. It seems like science fiction, but the good news is that we on the Committee on Science are in the business of making science fiction into reality, and it is not that far away. If we can make a commitment like we made when we decided to go to the Moon, we can get there. We as a Nation can decide that now is the time to really commit to forging ahead to create a hydrogen economy. Now is the time to be spending good money on that. It is time to stop simple spending and start thoughtful investing. There is a big difference. In this bill we have the opportunity to do just that, to invest serious money in the technology that can lead us to a hydrogen economy. If we do that, we will do good work for the American people and we will lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And, by the way, it is also about jobs. If we can retool the automobile and make it so that we not just develop the technology but also produce it here, we can tremendously expand the economy of the United States, providing jobs and, while doing that, cleaning up the environment and reducing the oil pressure on the Middle East. That is a trifecta. Let us get about it with a better title.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the National Beta Club as it completes its celebration of its 75th anniversary. The organization was formed by the late Dr. John West Harris in 1934 in Spartanburg County, SC and is still headquartered there in the Fourth District of South Carolina. Over the years, the National Beta Club has provided the catalyst for teenagers of good character to develop leadership skills and channel their energy into productive service to others. By maintaining its high standards and worthy goals and acting through its outstanding local chapters across the country, the organization has had a positive impact on the success and accomplishments of our great nation for the past seven decades. The National Beta Club's celebration of its seventy-first anniversary is an occasion highly deserving of recognition. Therefore, please join me in honoring this organization and its efforts to lay the foundation for learning and leading early in the lives of the young people whose lives it impacts.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am moved to commend to this House a thoughtful eulogy commemorating the life of one of America's finest: 1LT Andrew C. Shields. The eulogy was written and delivered by Brandon Steelman at First Lieutenant Shield's funeral at New Prospect Baptist Church, Campobello, South Carolina, on December 18, 2004. Eulogy For a Fallen Soldier: First Lt. Andrew C. Shields This past week has been filled with things that quite simply can't be understood. While there are many larger and more profound mysteries, one of the smaller mysteries I've faced this week is why Andrew would have me give these remarks today. Certainly, he had many friends who knew him just as well, if not better, than I did. And certainly he loved his family above all others. Each of those family members would be better suited to make these remarks today; after all, I didn't spend my childhood dressing like him as Philip did! But I think I'm here because Andrew would be too uncomfortable watching a beloved family member stand and undoubtedly cry in remembrance of him. But he was always OK when I stood up to embarrass myself. In fact, he encouraged it. So I can't think of a better way to embarrass myself on Andrew's behalf than to start with me, crying like a baby, when I first heard the horrible news we've all been trying to accept this past week. One of my first thoughts was to turn to the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer. In it I quickly found a prayer I'd like to share. Entitled For those in the Armed Forces of our Country, it reads: . . . Almighty God, we commend to your gracious care and keeping all the men and women of our Armed Forces, at home and abroad. Defend them, day by day, with your heavenly grace; Strengthen them, in their trials and temptations; Give them courage, to face the perils which beset them; And grant them a sense of your abiding presence, wherever they may be; through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. I read that prayer three times: the first time, I was too overcome with emotion to finish; the second, I was overcome with guilt for not having said that prayer every day Andrew had been away. But when I read it a third time, I realized Andrew didn't need my prayerful requests on his behalf. This prayer asks for a few important things, but Andrew had each of those, and it didn't take a friend reciting an old prayer to make them real for him. The prayer asked for strength in his trials, but, Andrew was already strong. He had a physical strength, sure: he ultimately got bored wrestling me so he turned it into a game of seeing how many time he could spin me in the air before pinning me to the ground. But it wasn't just physical strength that impressed so many people about Andrew. He had a strength of character. Without that, how does one put on hold a rewarding career, a promising salary, and the potential of finding his dream girl, all to leave the comfort of his newly constructed house for a far away land and a mission? Yes, Andrew had strength. The prayer asks for the benefits of heavenly grace. But Andrew's faith was already based on grace. In a generation where it's not cool to embrace religion, and not cool to hold yourself to unwavering moral principles, Andrew was a rare example of someone who not only incorporated religion into their weekly schedule, but who let it guide every aspect of his life. Andrew's soul was defended by grace long before I read that prayer. The prayer concludes by asking God to grant a sense of His abiding presence. But those of us here are already comforted by Andrew's faith, courage, and strength. We find comfort knowing that as we say the words, ``wherever he may be,'' Andrew maintains a sense of God's abiding presence, for he is graciously embraced by the spirit of our Heavenly Father. This prayer helps me, even though initially too difficult to read, because it reassures me to know Andrew's faith guided his life and protects him beyond his death. With a loss as great as Andrew, no single prayer will bring us the comfort we seek. In search of that reassurance, I visited a war memorial near my house. Inscribed there, in black marble, is a quote by George Washington. In words too long to recite today, he calls us to honor our nation's veterans, for it's our appreciation now that will determine the willingness of future generations to serve in wars to come. That quote reminded me of how inspired Andrew had been by his father's military service, and how proud he was to serve as an aviator for the country that brought aviation to the world. He considered the military an extended family and would have been honored to know that, as George Washington alluded, in honoring Andrew today, we prepare future generations to join his extended family and defend our nation as he so bravely did. Shortly, uniformed pallbearers will place Andrew's body on a horse-drawn carriage and, with full honors, give him a farewell worthy of his immeasurable sacrifice. But it's important to remember that Andrew never embraced recognition. Before he left for Iraq, he visited a class of second graders, who embraced him and adopted him as their pen-pal. He was flattered when some of them asked for his autograph, but told us later that he hadn't done anything heroic. As we all know, Andrew is a hero. Those second graders recognized that, as many of us did. But he didn't embrace our recognition. In the wake of Sept 11, when he was learning to fly his Apache, I spoke to him of his heroism, but he humbly dismissed me, quickly joking that I must have been drinking. Similarly, he would have blushed to see this much support today, and while graciously accepting the honor bestowed upon him by a grateful nation, he would want us to remember him for those great moments he shared with us in life. My sister, for example, said she will remember him as a giant snowball tumbling down the ski slopes as were tried to snowboard for the first time. I think memories like that would make him happy. In his humility and simple faith, we would bring him the most joy if today we honor him for the hero he is, and tomorrow we remember him for the great person he was.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as I fly back to South Carolina for the last time as a Member of this House, I'm thankful that the House has done its duty. We've kept the Republic; we've met our day of obligation. The Speaker-elect Mr. Livingston's dramatic resignation today on the House floor has shined the light of truth and honor on the deception that private conduct does not affect public morality and on the lie that a civilization may persist where wrongdoing is devoid of consequences. Repentance accompanied by acceptance of consequences precedes true healing. May our Land be healed as John Adams words ring down through history: ``Our constitution is meant for a moral and religious people and is wholly in adequate for the government of any other.''

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this is the last time I will be able to speak to the House of Representatives. I rise in support of the articles of impeachment because here tonight we have to answer three questions: First, are we a people of convenience or of conviction? Second, are we a constitutional Republic or a democracy? Third, are we a Nation based on truth or a Nation based on moral relativisim? The first of those questions, a people of convenience or a people of conviction. I have heard a lot of discussion about how the stock market may do this or that. We have heard refuting evidence that actually NASDAQ went up. We have heard about the disruption this may cause. So the question is, has our instant gratification come to the place where we need a microwave solution rather than a lasting solution based on principle and sound understanding of the Constitution? The second question that really has been fascinating to hear here today is whether we are a democracy or a constitutional Republic. I must say that some of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have misunderstood the name of their party with the basis of our government. We are not a democracy. This is a constitutional Republic. If it were a democracy, then if Baptists outnumbered Roman Catholics, Baptists could decide legitimately in a pure democracy to ban masses on Sunday. But thank goodness we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional Republic. And therein lies the rub here today on the floor. Here on the floor today we are dealing with a Constitution, and we are dealing with the principles contained in the Constitution. And those principles must hold sway over last night's overnight poll. That poll is insignificant compared to the lasting words of the Constitution. The third question we must answer is, are we a Nation based on truth or a Nation based on moral relativisim? This, I think, is the nub of the question. Does the truth matter or is everything relative? Is there any truth or is my truth different than your truth? And we can have inconsistent truths, and there is really no truth. I hope that America will always be a place of commitment to essential truths, the essential truths that Mr. Jefferson wrote about in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: I hope that it will always be a place of freedom coupled with responsibility. And that is what we are seeing here in the case of the President. I hope that it will always be a place of caring through families and local communities, a place of free enterprise within the context of fair competition, and a place of strength capable of defending freedom. Those things are what is at stake here tonight. I hope that the House of Representatives here tonight will vote to uphold the rule of law and to say that whenever our conduct, any of us, or any President's conduct contravenes the Constitution of the United States, that the people's House will rise up and say, no matter what party you are from, the Constitution must hold sway there rather than last night's overnight poll or any temporary affection that the people may hold for any particular officeholder. That is my hope. That is why I hope we pass articles of impeachment here tomorrow.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we are now engaged in a constitutional process that is about the search for truth. I believe that we should do that in a fair and expeditious way, completely disregarding polls, completely disregarding the pendency of an election on November 3, and answering the question that our colleague from California just asked about whether it is appropriate just to move along. Of course, we do want to move along to important issues facing the country. We do want to restore freedom in health care, we do want to secure the future of Medicare and Social Security, and we do want to continue the progress toward balancing the budget. All of those things we want to do. But I would ask my colleagues to consider this. Really, this is the crucial business of the country. This is the crucial business. As we go into the next century, the question is, does the truth even matter. Now, some would say, let us move along, it does not matter, just move along. But if we move along, what we are leaving aside is serious allegations of serious crimes. Just this week one of my staffers was on her way over here with a staff member of one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey). An accident occurred, occurred on a bicycle, struck this young lady, not my staffer, but the other staffer. She was hurt. Now, she has two duties as a citizen. One is to testify, to be a witness, to come forward; and the second is to testify truthfully when called on, if necessary, in court. Now, what shall we say to her if we are going to just move along and say that the potential of the crime of perjury just does not matter, then what of that small case in a court here in D.C.? We say to that case, well, it is not necessary to tell the truth in court, and it is not necessary to testify, I suppose. But we must say, if we are going to preserve the rule of law in this Nation, that it does matter, and that when that young staffer is called on to testify, if she must, she must testify, and then she must tell the truth. This is the essential work of this Congress and of this Nation.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to remember the anniversary of a very important, and yet somber event, which took place forty-eight years ago this month. An American soldier died fighting for his country. This American soldier was the assistant gunner on a machine gun. He and his fellow soldiers were fighting against Russian built T-34 tanks without adequate anti-armor weapons. No matter how bravely he and his fellow soldiers fought, they were unprepared for this combat. Only twelve days before, this soldier had no idea he would be in combat. Although he was stationed in a foreign land, his mission was really a peacekeeping mission. Land and money to conduct tough, hard training were not available, and besides, very few of his military leaders thought there would be any combat in the foreseeable future. Certainly the politicians in Washington had no idea about any threat. The U.S. President and Congress had been cutting the size of the armed forces and defense spending. The event I am talking about took place eleven days after the North Korean People's Army launched a massive surprise invasion of South Korea. This assistant machine gunner had been on occupation duty in Japan, now he was on a wet hillside north of Osan, Korea. July 5, 1998 is the 48th anniversary of the first combat death of an American soldier in the Korean War. Very soon this soldier would be joined by many of his comrades. He was the first out of the approximately 54,000 Americans (34,000 killed in action and 20,000 from accidents/disease) who would give their lives for our country. I want to use this anniversary not only to recognize the Korean War veterans, but also to bring attention to the similarity between our warfighting capabilities then and today. My source for this information is ``This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness'' by T.R. Fehrenbach, first published in 1963. It is a great and disturbing book on the Korean War. This book points out the incredible sacrifices our fighting men had to endure, in part because of the unpreparedness of the armed forces. This unpreparedness was caused by political leaders and, in some cases, military leaders who had soldiers concentrating on missions other than preparing for war and an inadequately funded defense budget. I believe that we must guard against a similar situation today. We hear much discussion in the press and even from this administration that the military needs to conform more with the cultural standards of today's civilian society. Also, with the end of the Cold War, many seem to believe that we should operate with a significantly smaller military budget and that the armed forces should focus on non-traditional missions such as foreign peacekeeping operations, civic actions, etc. I quote Mr. Fehrenbach from his book, ``The civilian liberal and the soldier unfortunately are eyeing two different things: the civilian sociologists are concerned with men living together in peace and amiability and justice; the soldier's task is to teach them to suffer and fight, kill and die. Ironically, even in the twentieth century, American society demands both of its citizenry.'' I believe many Americans, including political leaders, do not understand this simple fact whether or not they have had military service. There are many similarities between the world situation prior to the Korean War and our situation today. In both cases, the United States was and is the undisputed greatest military power. Many believe now, as then, that we would never have to fight a ``conventional type'' war again, that the size of the defense budget can be cut and cut again, and that the military should play a major role outside of its warfighting responsibilities. I believe that thinking such as this is a recipe for disaster. Congress has a vital, constitutional responsibility to insure that some future assistant machine gunner does not have to die for America in a similar set of circumstances. Finally, we must honor the sacrifice of the gallant soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors who fought and in many cases died in the Korean War. In many ways, the Korean War has become the forgotten war, and therefore, the Korean veterans have become the forgotten veterans. After the decisive victories of World War I and World War II, the American people were not sure what to think about this less than conclusive war. The fact is that the Korean War was the first of numerous conflicts that were fought during the four decade long Cold War. What all Americans need to remember is that those who fought in Korea played a vital role in our final victory. As Ronald Reagan said, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.''

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey for allowing me to proceed at this moment, appreciate that very much. In May of 1989, students began a protest for democratic reforms in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Their movement began modestly, then swelled to thousands as they occupied the square in what they saw as a people's movement. From the flat stone of the square they erected a 10-foot-tall likeness of the world's most recognizable symbol of freedom, the Statue of Liberty. Threatened, divided, Beijing's hard-line leaders invoked martial law and ordered the army to the square. Huge throngs, possibly amounting to more than 1 million Chinese, took to the streets to defy martial law and block troops from their planned crackdown on China's young freedom fighters. The world saw gripping pictures of an unarmed man refusing to give way to an approaching tank. ``With the people behind us, we'll succeed,'' one student told a reporter. ``No government can survive by using the Army against its own citizens.'' Tragically, he was wrong. The New York Times reported the following scene on June 4, 1989: Tens of thousands of Chinese troops retook the center of the capital early this morning from pro-democracy protesters, killing scores of students and workers and wounding hundreds more as they fired submachine guns at crowds of people who tried to resist. The hard-line leaders gave personal attention to the students' Statue of Liberty. ``Push it down,'' they ordered. We stand with the students. We do not stand with the dictators. The students of freedom look to their teachers, to the shining city on the hill. Lady Liberty searches the horizon for her fallen likeness. She listens for our voice. Let us be her voice. Let us say for her, as Moses said to Pharaoh, ``Let my people go.'' Let them go out of your prisons of conscience. Let them go out of your slave labor camps. Let them go out of your forced abortion clinics, and let our brothers and sisters worship our God, the creator and sustainer of the universe. Yes, with Lady Liberty, let us say, ``Let my people go.'' Last week, 51 Members of this House sent a letter to the President pleading with him not to be received in Tiananmen Square. Go, if you must, to China, but do not go to Tiananmen Square, we urged. Do not let compromise and cajoling wash away the memory of those students. They died for freedom. Let that stand. Let the dictators know that no American President will be received there, not until the dictators are gone and the teachers of freedom have erected a new Lady Liberty, our gift to the students, the students of freedom. I was in school when President Reagan, standing in front of the Berlin Wall said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, take down this wall.'' Many saw the scene as a reckless, silly old man standing against the night calling for the light and truth of freedom. But President Reagan was sure of what he spoke. He stood for freedom. He stood for principle, and he dared to dream of a different and better world. How can it be that we have shifted so quickly to a place of compromise and appeasement, to a place of favoring corporate profit over foundational principles, to a place of investigating the nearly unutterable, that campaign contributions may have driven the transfer of American-made missile guidance systems to an enemy of freedom? Last week the House voted 409 to 10 to set up a special nine-member committee with far-reaching authority to look into whether U.S. national security has been undermined in this matter. According to our intelligence agencies, at least 13 intercontinental ballistic missiles with American missile guidance systems may be pointed at the United States of America. ``Knock it down,'' the dictators ordered. God forbid that it should happen to the real Lady of Liberty. God forbid.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important amendment because really it goes right to the heart of what we are talking about here. What the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) would like to do is strike out the words ``to acknowledge God'' and to replace them with a more generic sounding series of words, and really that is sort of the nub of the issue about this amendment. I think that this is why the underlying language is the better language rather than the proposed amendment. The reason for that is this: I think the Founding Fathers fully anticipated that there would be a public expression of a private faith. They did not want a public expression of a public faith. They had experience with that, with the king, and they did not like that. It turned out to be a corrupt system, really more corrupting the church than the state. But they did not want that. They did not want a public expression of a public faith, but they surely expected a public expression of a private faith, and that is what we are here debating, is the ability of Americans to express their private faith publicly, to go to the public square and to have the rights that everyone else has in the public square. Now I think if the Founding Fathers were here present they would think, now this is rather strange that they are taking time on the floor to discuss this because surely this is what we intended, a public expression of a private faith. Why do they need to reiterate this? Well, the reason is unfortunately a series of decisions and a whole milieu that is created out of those decisions makes it so that we have to reiterate this. The last speaker at this podium said something about the explosive growth of prayer groups in schools and the ability of students to pray. Well I think it is interesting. Yesterday I met with a recent graduate of Riverside High School in Greenville, South Carolina, a young man named Allan Barton. Allan formed a Bible club at school, and as my colleagues know, in what some would consider the shiny buckle on the Bible Belt, that is, my hometown, they were not allowed to meet. In fact, the principal of the school said, ``Oh, my goodness, horrors. No, we couldn't do that.'' The school board said they could not do that, and it took this high school student, Allan Barton, courageously and not in a militant way, but rather in an appropriate and a respectful way going before the school board repeatedly to say, ``Please, let us get together as a group of students and study our Bibles just like the chess club can get together.'' As my colleagues know, it is interesting that again in what some people would consider the shining buckle in the Bible Belt, it was a split decision at the school board. It was a close vote as to whether this student would be allowed to have a Bible club at Riverside High School. Well, thankfully we won, and yesterday I presented him with a certificate thanking him for his work on establishing the principle of religious freedom in Greenville, South Carolina, at Riverside High School. Now what I think this indicates is we have come a long way. This started out saying the Founding Fathers thought we had a public expression of a private faith. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) wants to take out those words and make it more generic so that basically we are not acknowledging God, we are sort of acknowledging something generic. Well, I think that is a mistake because what we are trying to do here is say clearly to Allan Barton at Riverside High School, ``Allan, you're right. You obviously have a right to meet equal to the right of the chess club.'' Now thankfully the school board in Greenville decided to go along with him, but that was after the Rutherford Institute threatened to sue, and it should not be that it takes a threat of a lawsuit in order to enforce our constitutional rights. In fact, we should be able to exercise those rights without seeking redress to the courts. These are rights under the Constitution. So I would ask my colleagues to vote against the Bishop amendment and vote for the underlying language because we need to reestablish this principle.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I rise in support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and thank all those the gentleman has just mentioned for their good work on this. I believe it is important for us to realize it is not just a matter of keeping faith with our military retirees, it is also a matter of military readiness, because what I am hearing all around my State is that people who are on active duty now are telling their family members, do not re-up, do not reenlist. The military, the United States government, will not honor its commitments. So it becomes not just a matter of keeping faith with those who have gone before, but rather, with the military readiness of this Nation. So it is essential, I believe, that we in this Congress rise to the occasion of backing up our commitments to those retirees, not just so we can keep faith with them, but so we can keep faith with this Nation in providing for military readiness.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall no. 156, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''