Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise and invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Republic of China's National Day, known as ``Double Ten Day.'' On October 10, 1911 the Wuchang Uprising ushered in the wave leading to the collapse of the Ching Dynasty and the founding of the Republic of China. This anniversary will be a day of great celebration and thanksgiving, and I would like to offer my congratulations and good wishes to President Ma Ying-jeou and all the people of Taiwan on this special occasion. The centennial anniversary of the Republic of China's National Day is just one year away and it is fitting and proper to recognize the great strides made by the Republic of China over the course of that century. This great country has developed a vibrant and spirited democratic system of government, created a dynamic economic engine, and developed into a fully modernized country--a model for the region. Under the leadership of President Ma, Taiwan has also worked to improve relations with mainland China, having successfully negotiated and signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, ECFA, this year. Efforts like this can foster a new sense of cooperation within the region as the people of China and Taiwan benefit from increased trade between their countries. So I stand together today with the people of Taiwan as they celebrate the 99th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China. May the bravery and commitment that marked that day continue to flourish in these days and in the years ahead.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Mauldin, South Carolina, on its Municipal Association of South Carolina Achievement Award for improving relations between the Mauldin Police Department and youth community. Through four innovative youth initiative programs, Mauldin police officers interacted with the young people in a positive, hands-on way. The Mauldin Youth Court puts first-time juvenile defenders in a student-run trial. The jury of high school students hands out sentences typically consisting of community service, tutoring, or an essay. The program has seen success evidenced by a recidivism rate 5 percent lower than the rest of the state. The Youth Academy program targets middle-school students who have met the police department in negative circumstances. Together the Mauldin police department and other community members interact with the students for four weeks in circumstances not involving disciplinary measures. After the four weeks have concluded, each student is delegated an officer for a year-long mentorship program. Mauldin's police community also has made an effort to create a more formative relationship with adolescents through the Fifth Quarter program. With the help of the local high school and churches, the program hosts students at the local skating rink after school sporting events to prevent swarming and loitering. Officers serve free food and hand out prizes throughout the night. The program successfully has eliminated juvenile delinquency after football games, leading to a possible expansion of the program after basketball games. The Mauldin Youth Academy and Explorer programs give youth community a chance to interact directly with the police department through hands- on activities and mentorship. These programs not only teach adolescents about law enforcement but also give the police department a desired pool of potential candidates when hiring new officers. I am honored to see the City of Mauldin's novel youth programming with these four initiatives. The Mauldin Police Department is giving students the opportunity to interact with officers to proactively address juvenile crime and garnering interest in law enforcement while serving and protecting the entire Mauldin community.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate our steps towards restoring a single standard within our criminal justice system. For too long, Federal sentencing guidelines have placed far harsher penalties on crack users and dealers than on the users and dealers of powder cocaine. As crack cocaine use became prevalent and made headlines in the mid- 1980s, experts suggested that crack was significantly more addictive and linked to greater urban violence than its powder counterpart. Congress came parachuting in with mandatory sentencing minimums and, for good measure, established an exaggerated 100:1 sentencing ratio. But like so many well-intended Congressional actions, the disparate mandatory sentences have had a devastating effect on our urban communities and racial minorities. The 1986 law has contributed to skyrocketing incarceration rates of low-level, non-violent drug- offenders and even allowed these street-level dealers to be punished more harshly than drug-kingpins. We need to punish crimes, but this unjustified disparity has tied up law enforcement resources. It has encouraged skepticism and resentment within our African-American community and undermined public confidence in our nation's anti-drug laws. Former major league baseball player Willie Mays Aikens is a classic example of the sentencing disparity. Aikens faced a 20-year sentence for crack distribution and other crimes. Upon his release, Aikens commented that, had he been caught with powdered cocaine, he might have faced a single year's sentence, rather than the 12\1/2\ he faced for crack distribution. Aikens was grateful that the Sentencing Commission revisited his case and allowed for an early release. A broad coalition of civil rights, criminal justice, community-based, and faith-based organizations have joined forces to rectify the disparity. With the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (S.1789), the sentencing disparity is corrected from the current 100 to 1 ratio to 18 to 1, while establishing stiff new penalties for serious drug offenses. I am delighted that Congress has decided to act. Upon his release, Aikens interviewed with ESPN. His words capture my sentiment. ``All I can say, it's about time.''

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Simpsonville, South Carolina for being named one of Family Circle Magazine's ``10 Best Towns to Raise a Family'' in 2010. Led by Mayor Dennis Waldrop's vision, Simpsonville was picked as one of the ``perfect places to raise kids'' because of its ``affordable homes, green spaces, blue-ribbon schools and giving spirit.'' The city hosts one of the top balloon festivals in the country annually in Freedom Weekend Aloft and features the Discovery Island Waterpark, Golden Strip YMCA and a new state-of-the-art IMAX movie theater. The proximity to the mountains, coastal beaches and revitalized downtown Greenville make Simpsonville one of the Upstate's top destination cities for a family-friendly atmosphere. I congratulate Simpsonville and Mayor Waldrop on their continuous strides in moving the community forward.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize and welcome Rev. Lane D. Bembenek, pastor of the Joy Lutheran Church in Moore, SC. Pastor Bembenek studied theology in Rock Hill and Columbia, SC, and first pastored a church at the Pine Grove Lutheran Church in Lone Star, SC. In 1998, he began developing a new congregation in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America called Joy Lutheran church. This church has grown into a thriving congregation on the west side of Spartanburg, SC. Pastor Bembenek is married to Dianna Bonnett Bembenek. They have two sons, Jacob and William. We very much appreciate his contribution to the people of the Fourth Congressional District of South Carolina.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleagues in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the laser. This is a unique and fitting opportunity to recognize Charles Hard Townes. South Carolina has the distinction of claiming Dr. Townes, who was raised on a farm just outside of Greenville and graduated from Furman University. His long career led him to the historic Bell Labs, Columbia University, the Institute for Defense Analysis, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and continues today at the University of California, Berkely. He has made major waves in spectroscopy, radar systems, and now astrophysics and astronomy. The most notable of his achievements and the one that we celebrate now earned him a share in the 1964 Nobel Prize for Physics. Dr. Townes is most famous for his work on the precursor to the laser. This technology has contributed billions of dollars to our economy and we use it in everything from listening to music and buying groceries to manufacturing cars and conducting surgery. Scientists use lasers today to study everything from the big bang to nuclear fusion. This transformational technology can be traced back to an epiphany and a thought experiment on a Washington D.C. park bench in 1951. Three years of hard work and experimentation later, Dr. Townes and his team delivered a functional `maser.' By 1958, Bell Labs had filed a patent application for what we now call the laser. While we cheer Dr. Townes' hard work and the sweeping impact of his technology, we must also acknowledge his dedication to defending this idea. One of the most famous chapters in the history of the laser is the steadfast opposition Dr. Townes and his team faced from several eminent physicists. His perseverance pushed the research forward. In addition, Dr. Townes is one of only two people who have ever won both the Nobel Prize and the Templeton Prize. The Templeton Prize honors those who have made exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension, and Dr. Townes received the prize for his papers and talks that sought harmony between scientific discovery and religious faith. It is an honor to recognize this man and his numerous contributions to physics and scientific inquiry. I thank him for his devotion to discovery, and for sharing his optimism and genius with all of us.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this flawed health care bill. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Fourth District of South Carolina are sending a message to Washington. They do not want a ``cram down'' of this health care bill. Last week I received over 3,000 letters from my constituents stating their opposition to using reconciliation to pass health care reform. They spoke loud and clear to me during town hall meetings last August. I don't want this bill. The Fourth District does not want this bill. The American people don't want this bill. And many of my Democratic colleagues don't want this bill either. We need health care reform and we can work on a step by step approach. The American people want us to focus on creating jobs and fixing the economy, not implementing a massive new federal entitlement program. Mr. Speaker, let's throw out this bill and start working to grow the economy.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Carolina International Trucks (CIT) and its President, Richard D. Ryan, on the occasion of receiving the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. CIT maintains a significant presence in the Fourth Congressional District with a dealer location in Greer, SC. With 310 employees, CIT is one of the top truck dealerships in the Southeast and the entire nation. In 2003, it was named the International Dealer of the Year, an honor awarded to the dealer of International brand trucks who exhibits the highest commitment to best- in-class customer service. Including this new award recent award, CIT has now received the Circle of Excellence Award, under Richard's leadership, a total of 15 times. The Circle of Excellence, which is awarded by the International dealer organization of Navistar, Inc., honors International truck dealerships that achieve the highest level of dealer performance with respect to operating and financial standards, market representation, and most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor a dealer principal can receive from the company. Through Richard's commitment to hard work and outstanding customer service, he has built a business that is contributing to economic growth during these challenging times. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Richard Ryan for his record of accomplishment and for his many contributions to his community, state and nation.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, the government draws its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. I have here over 3,000 letters from the constituents in the Fourth District saying this: I write this letter to emphatically say I do not want this massive health care bill. I believe it costs too much, it taxes too much, and it will kill jobs. Reconciliation is the utmost of partisan maneuvers on such a bill and would be ill-advised. Health care reform needs to be addressed. Getting the economy going and restoring jobs should come first. I'm among those who favor a step-by-step commonsense approach that focuses on lowering costs for families and small business. Mr. Speaker, reject this bill. Give us the consent of the governed, allow us to pass a bill that has the consent of the governed, and then we restore the legitimacy of this body. Stop the cram-down of health care reform.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to join a celebration going on in Spartanburg, South Carolina, because the Wofford College Terriers have won the Southern Conference Tournament Championship last week and they have gotten a ticket to the NCAA tournament. Led by Southern Conference Player of the Year Noah Dahlman, Wofford also won the regular season this year and then its first ever SoCon tournament title last week in Charlotte. Winning 13 straight games, Wofford will be making its first ever appearance in the NCAA tournament as the smallest school in the field of 65 this year, with 1,450 students. While the Terriers may be small in size, they played big in upset wins against Georgia and South Carolina. My congratulations to Wofford head coach Mike Young and all the Terrier players. I'm with them all the way to the final. If they're against Duke at that point--sorry, all bets are off. Until then, I'm for the Terriers.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I am here to honor one of America's heroes. U.S. Army Sergeant Jeremiah Wittman, age 26, was killed in Afghanistan on Saturday, February 13, 2010. Sergeant Wittman was from Montana. His wife, Karyn, is from the Chesnee/Boiling Springs area of Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Sergeant Wittman and Karyn have a beautiful 3-year-old daughter named Miah. I got to play in Miah's doll house when I visited her grandparents' home recently. More on that in a minute. Sergeant Wittman was doing what Americans best do--he was protecting freedom, protecting us, when an improvised explosive device was detonated near him as he was on foot patrol in Zhari province in Afghanistan. I wonder what it means to a 3-year-old, Madam Speaker, to hear that her daddy is one of our heroes. I said that to Miah the other night at her house. I know she heard it from others because we are very patriotic people in the upstate of South Carolina, Madam Speaker. Still, I wonder what it means to a 3-year-old. Miah's mom, Karyn, knows what it means. She knew what it meant when representatives of the U.S. Army showed up at her parents' front door dressed in ``Class A's.'' She knows that this Saturday an Army officer will kneel beside her and say that the President of the United States and a grateful Nation stand in appreciation of the honorable and faithful service of her husband, Jeremy. Devoted spouses like Karyn and self-sacrificing parents like Sergeant Wittman's know that service means the possibility of not coming home safe and sound, the possibility that the last full measure of devotion will be given on a battlefield far from home. The people of the upstate of South Carolina and Montana know what it means. It means that we must live our lives in gratitude to America's best; the ones who come home unscathed, the ones who come home with scars, and the ones who come home in solemn honor. But what does it mean to Miah? Well, Madam Speaker, if you will indulge me, I will try to say what it means in a letter to Miah. Dear Miah, that's an awesome dollhouse you have in the living room at your grandma and grandpa's house. Thank you for letting me see the cool things you've got in there. I like the computer a lot, and the lights over the door to your doll tent are awesome. Thank you for showing me the pictures of you and your daddy. I guess you've noticed by now that grown-ups like us cry sometimes when we hear you say that your daddy is in heaven. It's not that we're not happy for him. You know better than us grown-ups that your daddy can trust God to dry every tear. It's just that we're overwhelmed by the gift you've given. You and your mom and your grandparents have given the rest of us the gift of your dad's life. He was in Afghanistan protecting you and your mom mostly, but he was also there protecting me and my family and all American families. So if you see a lot of people crying, it's the only way we know to show how much we care, how much your dad's sacrifice, how much your sacrifice means to us. A sergeant like your dad told me recently, ``When I see good things at risk, I'm inclined to fight for it. I guess that's why I'm in the Army.'' That's Sergeant Mennell from Texas. I don't know if Sergeant Mennell knew your dad, but I bet that's what your dad thought too. Your dad saw your future at risk, Miah, so he went to fight for you and for me and for all of us. When I was leaving your house the other night, there was a beautiful moon hanging low in the west over the mountains you can see from the top of your driveway. It was glowing orange and looked like a bowl that could hold something. I thought of those pictures of you and your dad. I thought of God holding the moon up there, holding your dad, holding you and your mom, holding this whole big world. It seemed like the moon was doing something else, Miah. It seemed that it was holding the hope of a lot of tomorrows. You see, as the moon falls, the sun rises on a new day. When your dad fell, it was so that you could have many more tomorrows in peace and freedom. When I see a waxing moon glowing orange and hanging low in the west, stretching its light from South Carolina to that farm your dad loved in Montana, I'll think of you, Miah, and I'll think of your dad, and I'll pray for many tomorrows for you and for the country your dad loved. Thank you, Miah. Your friend, Bob. P.S. Keep an eye on those dinosaurs in your doll tent. You know they scare me.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, I'm just back from a trip led by our colleague, Steve Lynch, to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and what we saw there, Mr. Speaker, was America's best doing incredible work. The U.S. military is clearly the best trained, best equipped and most disciplined fighting force in the world. I'm committed to keeping it that way and to supplying them with the resources they need to get their work done. I'm also committed to confining their mission to achievable objectives and to the protection of America's national security interest. There are many memorable moments from this trip, Mr. Speaker. When we stepped off the plane in Pakistan, the first person I saw was Lieutenant Colonel Rick Simmons of Pickens, South Carolina. Formerly the Veterans Affairs Officer of Pickens County, Colonel Simmons is now the Chief of Protocol in the Office of the Defense Representative to Pakistan. Skipping a dinner with the delegation gave me the opportunity to have dinner with Colonel Simmons and seven other American service personnel at Simmons' apartment in Islamabad. In Kabul, Afghanistan, I talked with Susan Anderson, who is serving in the American Embassy as an economic analyst. Susan is a graduate of Union High School and the College of Charleston. In Kandahar, I met two members of the National Guard unit from Wellford, South Carolina, which deployed recently to Afghanistan. Justin McAbee of Travelers Rest and Zack Gregg of Pelzer. Justin's home is about 5 miles from mine. Passing by Benson Road as I travel on Highway 25 North will remind me to pray for Justin and those serving with him. He is on the explosive ordnance detonation team. When I thanked him for serving our country and tried to compliment him on doing his very dangerous work, he gave me the standard response of our incredible all- volunteer force: ``It's my job, sir.'' At a dinner hosted by America's ambassador, Mr. Eikenberry, with female members of the Afghan parliament, we were called on to offer comments. I used my remarks to remember Geoff Whitsitt of Travelers Rest, who was killed last month by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan. I wanted them to hear his name in Afghanistan, exactly one week to the hour after the Upstate paused for his funeral. I wanted them to know how precious his life was to his parents, to his brother, and to our mutual friends. I wanted them to understand that Geoff died for the protection of America. I told them that we were willing to give our treasure in Afghanistan to help build their nation because we are sure that, using our creativity and entrepreneurship, we will make the money back. But, I told them we are willing to give the lives of our sons and daughters only for America. On this point, Mr. Speaker, we must be clear. While we are hunting down terrorists, we are going to give the Afghan people the opportunity to reject al Qaeda outsiders and to build a future free of the Taliban. The Afghan people should seize the opportunity, as it will not last indefinitely. At present, more of America's best are arriving in Afghanistan. They are there to kill terrorists. They are there to facilitate the work of an army of American civil servants and contractors who can show a way forward to a stable constitutional republic. They are there to serve America's national security interests by draining a terrorist cesspool. But there will come a day when the brave men and women of America's Armed Forces will have completed their work. Not that they will have taken out every terrorist, for that would be impossible. But there will come a day when we will have destroyed enough of the terrorist networks in Afghanistan that America will be reasonably safe from murderous plottings, at least from within Afghanistan's borders. Until then, we fight on, committed to finishing the job, clear-eyed and determined to avoid mission creep. The trip also include crew rest stops in Romania and in Tunisia. In Tunisia, we visited the World War II North Africa American Cemetery and Memorial near Tunis, where 2,841 Americans are buried and 3,724 missing Americans are memorialized on a limestone wall called the Tablets of the Missing. After a wreath-laying ceremony, the delegation walked among the graves. It was especially meaningful to walk among the graves with two of our young military escorts, Sergeant Rob Mennell and Sergeant Aaron Moss. We tend to think of the members of the Greatest Generation as granddads, but they weren't granddads as they were serving in World War II. They were young, very young, as young as the two Army sergeants who were accompanying us on this trip. I was grateful for the opportunity to tell those sergeants how much their service means to me and to all Americans, and I was grateful to remember why freedom is worth fighting for.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise to remember Private First Class Geoffrey A. Whitsitt, a 21-year-old of Travelers Rest, South Carolina, Army Airborne, serving in Afghanistan, headed for Special Forces training and hoping to become an Army Ranger. Geoff was 2 weeks shy of his 22nd birthday when, on January 13, an improvised explosive device was detonated near the Humvee he was driving, killing Geoff, his sergeant, and seriously wounding their gunner. Some Taliban or al Qaeda operative out there might be thinking that they killed an infidel. They didn't. They failed at three levels. First, Geoff was no infidel. He was a believer. He was a believer in America and a believer in the King of all creation, a citizen of the freest, most blessed land in the world, and a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. Geoff wanted that kingdom to come. He prayed for that kingdom to come. He worked for that kingdom to come. He served for that kingdom to come. In the end, he went there before the invisible became visible here. Those who detonated that IED failed at another level. They think they frightened Geoff's family, his friends and his countrymen. They're wrong. My wife and I visited the Whitsitts last night. Their faith in America, their faith in the author of our salvation, the Prince of Peace, the King of Kings is undiminished. They know that other Geoffs will run the hills and woods that Geoff loved to run in the northern part of our county. They know that another Geoff will come in last in his first cross-country meet and finish 16th in the State by the end of the season. They know that another Geoff will take what he learned of love and books and faith in his home school and at Greenville Tech Charter High School and volunteer to serve his Nation. They know that another dad will take another Geoff to the banks of the Middle Saluda River for fishing and for talks about the essence of life. Those who detonated that IED failed at a third and higher level. They think that Geoff is dead. He isn't. He lives. He lives in our hearts and minds because he is one of our heroes. He lives in the heart of his older brother, Steven, serving with steely determination in the United States Navy. He will always live in the hearts of his mom and dad. They loved him, led him, admired him, and gave him up for the rest of us. Their gift reminds us of the gift of all gifts--a father who had sovereign control over all aspects of His Son's substitutionary death, and who gave Him up for us all. Geoff lives in the nail-pierced hands of that Savior, and no one can snatch him out of those hands.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, Saturday, January 9, 2010, marked a special day for the Blue Ridge Council Boy Scouts and the entire Boy Scouts of America organization. The Blue Ridge Council celebrated its 86th year of serving the youth of Upstate South Carolina and the national Boy Scouts of America organization celebrated its centennial. The Boy Scouts of America organization was founded on principals set forth to shape and mold boys into young men. Learning to become mentally awake, physically strong and morally straight are key to the development of loyal patriots and the Boy Scouts of America have long since been instrumental in the lives of many young men.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, this week follows a surreal week last week. Last week, we did an omnibus bill that spends $446.8 billion. That's on top of the $634.2 billion from other discretionary spending. Those are increases of 7.6 percent over 2009 levels and 16.8 percent over 2008 levels. This is on top of the mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is why this week the surrealness will continue as the majority will find it necessary to increase the debt limit from $12 trillion, which is 20 percent of GDP. They will raise it by another $2 trillion. Madam Speaker, we must stop the runaway train. We must stop the runaway spending.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, the report by the chief actuary of Medicare is in and, as we thought, it shows real problems with the idea of expanding Medicare coverage to lower age groups. This summer, I had an opportunity to do a bunch of town hall meetings, and in those meetings we discussed the fact that what we're talking about really, in the public option, is adding more people to something like the SS Medicare which is already sinking in the harbor. But now over in the other body, there is specifically a proposal to literally add more people to the sinking SS Medicare in the harbor. And so in the last several days, the chief actuary has provided a report that really should stop us in our tracks and cause us to realize that that's no solution, to add people to a program that is already unsustainable. What that chief actuary of Medicare reports--and there are several items in his report, obviously, but one of them is the report cautions that savings needed to extend the trust fund cannot simultaneously be used to extend other health insurance coverage. In other words, if you're going to save money, you can't simultaneously expand coverage under the program. It seems fairly obvious to the folks I was talking to in town hall meetings. Unfortunately here in Washington, it seems not to be comprehended. We seem to think that here in Washington we can continue to add people to a program even though the people that are currently on the program have it on a trajectory that can't be sustained. The actuary also points out that actually the Senate bill would increase the cost of health care; would not decrease the cost of health care. In fact, total spending on health care would increase by $234 billion between 2010 and 2019. Also, total Federal expenditures on health care would increase $365.8 billion during that period. The bill would extend coverage to 33 million Americans by 2019 but would still leave 24 million people uninsured, 5 million of which may be illegal immigrants. And the number of people with employer-sponsored health care would drop by 5 million by 2019. What the chief actuary is telling us is that the solution that's being proposed is not a solution. In order to solve the challenge of Medicare, you have to figure out some way to change the underlying behavior. You have to figure out a way to get the patient invested in their care and caring how much it costs. That's what we've got to do for Medicare, Medicaid and for private insurance. There are some very creative things going on in the private sector that are toward this end, to have this objective of changing the underlying behavior. What we're discussing here in the Congress under the majority here in the House and the apparent majority over in the Senate is not something that will change behavior. What it will do is simply add more people to a program that is already unsustainable. So rather than saving money, as the President suggests it will, actually what will happen, as the chief actuary says, is the costs rise; not everybody gets covered. It's clearly not a solution. So what we have to do is scrap the current plans and go back to something that might actually work: by getting a change in behavior, by figuring out how to get people covered, by figuring out how to do medical malpractice reform and by getting 50-State competition among private insurance companies. Those, Madam Speaker, are the solutions we want to see in this country. We must stop this false solution that's being offered now.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, a number of physicians would tell you that longevity is based only on genetic make-up. But you might ask them, Doctor, if I were to diet and exercise safely, might I extend my life? Well, most physicians would say, If you can do it safely, go ahead. That is really what I think we should be talking about when it comes to climate change. If we can do it safely as to the economy, we should act. If we can't do it safely, then we should hold up. In the case of cap-and-trade, which has passed this floor, unfortunately, and is pending now in the other body, it can't be done that way. In other words, it will harm the economy. We are talking about a tax increase in the midst of a recession. We are talking about a Wall Street trading scheme that would make some traders blush, and it punishes American manufacturing. So for all those reasons, I wish cap- and-trade were off the table. Hopefully, it falls apart over in the other body. Then the question is, Could we act in some way that is sort of like the longevity question? It might not extend our lives, but on the other hand, would it hurt us? And in this case, what we are looking for is something that would work that wouldn't hurt us, that wouldn't hurt our economy. And what I have proposed is a 15-page alternative to the 1,200-page cap-and-trade, and that 15 pages describes a tax cut on payroll and a shift on to emissions, the result being that we would change the economics of the incumbent fossil fuels and begin replacing them with better fuels that can create jobs and improve the national security of the United States. Along the way, though, I think the big debate about whether the climate change models are right, and it's very important that we get it right as to those models, but that process is going to take a long time. It's going to take a longer time with this setback here recently with the revelation that various climate data has been manipulated. What we have here is a teachable moment for all scientists everywhere that when this kind of misconduct occurs, the result is all of science is questioned. It's not a good result because the reality is we need this science to advance, and we need it to advance in a transparent way where the evidence can be pushed on and replicated if it's accurate. If it's not accurate and can't be replicated, it's rejected. But in the rejection, we learn, and science advances. So I join with Ranking Member Hall in asking for a full investigation of these revelations about the manipulation of data because we need to get to the bottom of it. Especially in the Science Committee, we need to use this as a teachable moment to figure out how to advance science, true science, without manipulation of data in calling to account those who have manipulated data. In the process, we will all learn a lot about the climate models, we will advance science, and we will make better public policy.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, I identify with the sentiments of the gentleman who just spoke. The only problem is if you look at Martin Feldstein's article yesterday in The Washington Post, what you see is that we are going to have another problem with the cost of this, that as folks have a problem with the cost shift continuing, we are actually going to make insurance more expensive, and actually people are going to lose coverage because they are going to decide to go bare until they get sick, then access the guaranteed issue, then cause premiums to rise, which will actually cause more people to be uninsured. So the mandate here doesn't work because the penalties aren't high enough in the mandate to keep people from deciding to go bare until they are diagnosed with a problem. The result will be that we actually end up with more people uninsured and higher premiums. The bill needs to be rethought. That is the kind of thing that we could develop in a collaborative process. That's not the process here. That's why we have this problem.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, there are many things wrong with the Pelosi health care bill. Some of them rise to moral issues, and certainly the moral issue that I am focused on right now is the abortion issue. There are a lot of people who want to say, Well, there won't be public funds used for abortion, but really, please, when we debate this bill, let's not insult the intelligence of other Members of Congress or of the American people. There is a clear commingling of resources. If you set up a public option and then there is money flowing into that from taxpayers, that money will ultimately find its way to abortion services. So what we need in order to avoid that problem that many of us have of funding abortions with taxpayer money is an expressed prohibition on abortion services. There needs to be a bright line in this bill saying there will be no support for abortion services anywhere in the bill, similar to the Hyde amendment in HHS appropriations. So, Madam Speaker, this is something that needs to be done in order to make it clear and to avoid this moral challenge.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, lacking a collaborative process, we unfortunately must simply oppose the Pelosi health care bill. This bill has within it a public option to which Members of Congress aren't subject. It has a comingling of taxpayer funds for abortion services, tax increases, benefit cuts, especially for Medicare Advantage. And, in leaving the $245 billion doctor fix out of the bill and put in a separate bill, it really makes a mockery of what the President said here when he said not one dime will be added to the deficit. The bill also has no appreciable attempt at medical malpractice reform and actually tries to avoid State limits imposed by State legislatures. Mr. Speaker, this bill simply must be voted down, we start over and try to find a collaborative process, and come up with something that will work for America.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, we are looking at some scary numbers. Just in time for Halloween, we have the budget deficit numbers in; $1.42 trillion for this year and an accumulated debt of $13 trillion. Now, this has happened before. We have been in a spot before with historical debt levels shown here on this chart. You can see after World War II we actually reached nearly 110 percent of GDP. Our debt was nearly 110 percent of GDP. But, as you can see, it has gone down, and now it is trending way high. There is a big difference between this historical debt and the debt that we are experiencing now, because the question is: Who did we owe it to? After World War II, we owed 95 percent of the debt to ourselves. The U.S. public held 95 percent of the United States debt in 1945. Today, in 2009, only 54 percent is held by the U.S. public. China is holding 11 percent, and other foreign countries are holding 35 percent. So nearly 50 percent of our debt is owed to other countries. It is quite different than the scenario after World War II. It is a shame, Madam Speaker, that we didn't adopt the more significant budget cuts of the Republican Study Committee budgets. Had we done that over the last 5 years, we would now be looking at $613 billion less in spending. We would have saved $613 billion by enacting those most conservative budgets offered on this House floor. If this keeps up, what we have got now is government spending now as a percentage of GDP, as you can see here under the Obama approach, fiscal year 2010 budget, with the out years being reflected in the long-term fiscal scenario of CBO, you can see that government spending as a percentage of GDP actually rises to nearly 50 percent, 50 percent of GDP being government spending. Under the Republican alternatives, you can see that we trend down after this most recent uptick, and we get down to the level of somewhere around 18 percent of GDP as a percentage of government spending. Madam Speaker, I am here to say to my colleagues that we must do something. These are scary numbers, and we have got to act. The key is to get to fiscal restraint and economic growth. Those things have to happen simultaneously. You do that by keeping taxes low, keeping regulation light, and getting litigation down. You do that by making wise energy policy that makes it so that energy can be the new tech boom that leads us out of the current recession. I happen to believe that the road to recovery and the road to energy independence are one and the same. If we get on that road, we can lead our way out of this recession. I happen to believe, too, that the upstate of South Carolina has a lot to offer in paving that road, making it so we can get to balanced budgets by economic growth and fiscal restraint, and improve the national security of the United States by breaking this addiction to oil, by finding these new sources of energy and making it so we can create jobs. Madam Speaker, that is what we should be about here. I hope we can get to it.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis Bill Number: Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Corps of Engineers--Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Greenville Address of Requesting Entity: 206 South Main Street Greenville, South Carolina 29602 Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to conduct a feasibility study examining potential environmental restoration and flood control projects for the Reedy River in the vicinity of Greenville, SC. This study will be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, as the next phase in the Corps' ongoing work to restore and stabilize the Reedy. The amount is $90,000 and it would go to the City of Greenville.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, tonight I want to talk about where we are with the budget deficit. Just in time for Halloween, we are looking at scary numbers: an annual deficit of $1.42 trillion, accumulated debt of $13 trillion. It's a real fright. So, what does it compare to in our history? Well, here we have a chart that shows the historical debt levels of the United States. This is debt owed to the public, not intergovernmental debt. But what it shows is that after World War II there was a substantial amount of debt owed to the public; in fact, it was over 100 percent of our gross domestic product. Since then, it has gone down nicely, and that's a good thing. But here, lately, you can see the trajectory over there of where we're headed to, another dangerously high level of debt; again, an accumulated debt right now of $13 trillion, and this year will throw on 1.42 trillion from this year's annual deficit. But the historical debt level gives us a little bit of comfort because it shows that after World War II we had a higher percentage of debt than we do now. But there is a big difference between the debt after World War II and the debt today. As you can see here, the comparison of our creditors on this debt is what's really telling and what, again, just in time for Halloween, is rather frightening. In 1945, 95 percent of the debt was owed to the U.S. public; only 5 percent of it we were looking at back then was foreign investment. Now, then, in 2009, that $13 trillion debt that I was just talking about, the U.S. public owns only 54 percent of that debt. China owns 11 percent, other foreign countries, 35 percent. So the very scary thing is that, unlike World War II where we had a higher percentage of debt compared to GDP but we owed it to ourselves, now with this $13 trillion debt, we owe it to foreign countries, not to ourselves. The very sad thing for me as a member of the Republican Study Committee is that if we had enacted the conservative budgets that we proposed since 2005, we would be, right now, $613 billion to the better, because over those years, we proposed here on this House floor the most conservative budget alternatives offered. Had they been enacted, we would have been looking at $613 billion less than what we are looking at now by way of debt. Now, from here, it gets even scarier, because this chart shows the effect of President Obama's proposed budget in 2010. As you can see, government spending as a percentage of GDP--that's what this chart is showing is government spending as a percentage of GDP--you can see it taking off at a trajectory that truly is frightening. The Republican alternative budgets, as you can see there, show a trend line down so that we would be moving away from government spending as a percentage of GDP. It would actually be declining over the years to come. So, the question for us as Americans is: How are we going to cope with the fact that we've got a $13 trillion accumulated debt? First thing we could do is cancel the unspent part of the stimulus package; that's $787 billion. Only 13 percent of it has been spent. Surely we can cut that out. The next thing we can do is make sure we do no harm in health care, and that means avoiding yet another government program like Medicare and Medicaid that involve cost shift. That means that private sector employers and people covered by their own insurance will have to make up for the shortfall created by the cost shift that comes from these underpaying government programs. But even in their underpayment, they create an enormous government deficit problem. So, Madam Speaker, the message I think to all of us, Republicans and Democrats, the President and the Congress, is to come together to figure out a way to get this trajectory down, to not be looking at this kind of government spending that takes off, but rather to bring that down.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Recently on this House floor, Mr. Boehner was successful in getting the Defund ACORN Act attached to the student aid bill. By a vote of 345-75, this House voted to cut off funding to ACORN. My constituents are very relieved by that because throughout August I heard from them very clearly that they don't want an organization that's been up to the things that ACORN has been up to receiving Federal funds. In fact, since 1994, according to Leader Boehner's office, they may have received directly as much as $53 million; more than that indirectly through block grants that may have come from State sources. Madam Speaker, that's got to stop. It's a good step that we took in the Defund ACORN Act, but we're not through yet, because something tells me that throughout the appropriations process there's money tucked away. And so we must remain vigilant and see this organization associated with voter fraud and other irregularities must be cut off at the Federal trough.

Mr. INGLIS

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, in my district, many people are telling me about their concern about the excessive use by the administration of special staff or czars. Over 30 czars are now serving in the Obama administration. The problem we have with that is they haven't been confirmed by the Senate, and that is a real problem. If you exercise authority over American citizens, we need the constitutional protection of making sure that they've been vetted by the Senate and given approval by the Senate to serve in those capacities when they are exercising authority over the American people. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the excellent bill by our distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the Czar Accountability Reform Act of 2009. It would cut off funding for these special assistants unless they have the consent of the Senate to serve, the approval of the Senate, the confirmation of the Senate to serve. That's what the Constitution requires, Mr. Speaker. That's what we need to require.