Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have a huge challenge in Iraq. It is a challenge for Democrats. It is a challenge for Republicans. It is a challenge for the President and for the Congress. We need an American solution to that challenge. The question before us today is whether this resolution is going to advance that solution or it is actually going to make it more difficult. I am one of the 17 Republicans that wasn't convinced of the surge; but I am aware now that we are doing it. It is underway, and the plan is clear to have General Petraeus report in September. I am not certain why it is that we should be debating today a resolution prior to that time because, between now and then, rather than having a succession of political kind of resolutions, we could be working toward an American consensus on this. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that consensus is not that far away. I think we can start with two very clear observations. First, our military has done exactly what we have asked them to do. And they have done it very well. Second, we need to use the American concept of accountability. We need to impose accountability on the Iraqi regime and say to them, we have these benchmarks and here are some rewards for success and some consequences for failure. And between now and September 30, if we work in a cooperative way, I think we can find a whole series of success check points that we can lay out for the regime in Baghdad. We can say to them, Republicans, Democrats, the President and Congress alike, can say to them, here are the things that we want you to accomplish, and we have the right to insist that you accomplish them because after all, we are spending $2 billion a week. But even more important than that, far more important than that, we have American lives at risk. So we have the right as their protectors. We want you to achieve these things. If you do, you get these rewards. If you fail, these are the consequences. We can lay out a whole series of those if we work together in a cooperative way. The President, the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, we can come up with that American solution and we can find a way forward in Iraq. The question that I think the proponents of this resolution need to answer is, if you simply set the withdrawal date of April 1, what went with all of that accountability? What went with all of those success check points? The question really for the proponents is: How do you know by April 1, such a date in stone, that you will have succeeded? Why not work cooperatively between now and September, awaiting the report, to prepare a series of very carefully thought out success check points with consequences for failure and rewards for success? And think through the plan. As it is, I think there is not much of a plan; and, therefore, I will vote against the resolution.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful for the opportunity to offer the amendment. It is on behalf of myself and Mr. Lipinski, the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Upton, and the gentlewoman from California Ms. Harman. It is an exciting thing to see an opportunity to save money and to save energy by changing some light bulbs. So we hope that we see these energy savings, and we know that it is something that will benefit the country. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). Even though we are very grateful for the chairman already accepting the amendment, he should say something about our bill.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support. I very much appreciate the chairman and ranking member's acceptance of our amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentlelady. I rise with the support of several Members of this amendment. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I are offering an amendment that would require that light bulbs purchased in the Leg Branch appropriations would comply with the ENERGY STAR and Federal Energy Management Program identifications. The idea here is to save some money easily and to save a lot of energy, and of course energy is money. Most Americans are still using, and most of the light bulbs in my house are incandescent bulbs that Thomas Edison invented more than 100 years ago. But only 10 percent of the energy of those light bulbs turns out to be light; 90 percent is wasted as heat. So we've got something better. And like many, I'm switching to CFLs. Those lights provide much more efficient lighting. And it's amazing to think that if every American just switched one incandescent bulb to an energy-efficient alternative, we would collectively save more than $8 billion in energy costs, prevent the burning of 300 billion pounds of coal, and remove 2 million cars' worth of greenhouse gas emissions from our atmosphere. This small step in this amendment is part of something else that Mr. Lipinski and I are working on, which is a Bulb Replacement in Government and High Efficiency Technology, BRIGHT we call it, Energy Savings Act, along with Representative Harman, that would require GSA to replace burned out light bulbs with more efficient options like compact fluorescent lighting. The BRIGHT Act has 82 cosponsors, and we look forward to its adoption. This amendment is a good step toward that goal. Madam Chair, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Chair, we appreciate very much the committee's willingness to accept this amendment. It is a good step forward.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I agree with the gentleman. I certainly hope that we can improve that procedure. In the meantime, we're improving the bulbs, making us more energy efficient here in the Capitol, and hopefully throughout these appropriations bills in this season. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I think that, as Ms. Harman just pointed out and as the Chair of the committee has pointed out, there are some issues involving the aesthetics. You've got to choose the right light bulb, that's for sure. We've heard some discussion this morning about how they glow moon glow, or whatever. Well, if you pick the wrong kind, they do glow moon glow. I've got some in my garage, and it's a really freaky kind of look in there. But I've got some in the house that look yellow and nice. So you've got to pick the right bulbs. And of course in the historical context we have to pick the right bulbs. And we do have to deal with the recycling of these. Just like we don't have a sufficient program for recycling lead batteries around, we toss those in the trash, we have a problem with the mercury in these. But we can get there. We start by saving an awful lot of money and a lot of energy.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member for your work on this bill. Two weeks ago the House passed the H-Prize Act of 2007. The H-Prize was overwhelmingly supported here in the House with a vote of 408-8, and last year 416-6. The H-Prize is a nonbureaucratic way for government to achieve its goal of harnessing America's entrepreneurial spirit to tackle our energy challenges. The best part is, if no one wins the government doesn't have to pay. We need $6 million, Mr. Chairman, to fund the H-Prize at its inception. Of that amount, $1 million would be used to fund a prize for advancements in components or systems related to hydrogen storage, $4 million would be used to fund a prize for development of prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles or other hydrogen-based products, and $1 million would be used for administration of the prize competitions. The Secretary of Energy was granted authorization for creating prizes in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The H-Prize gives structure to this prize authority in accordance with recommendations from industry, academia, government and venture capitalists. I would ask the chairman if he would work with Mr. Lipinski, the gentleman from Illinois, and me to provide funding for the H-Prize as we move forward in conference with the Senate.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to one of the co-chairs of the House Hydrogen Caucus, Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his work on a number of energy initiatives that we're collaborating on. This is one of those. I think it's a very exciting bill that won't solve all of our challenges, but it will get us down the road toward a brighter energy future. And it's always helpful to have a picture tell a thousand words. This is a picture of a gas line in a province in China on August 17, 2005. That's a line of cars waiting to buy gas. ExxonMobil tells us the global energy demand is expected to grow by 60 percent between now and 2030. So we've got to find something to do in order to get to a brighter energy future, one that does not involve the restricted supply that we have when it comes to petroleum. So what we've come up with is an idea of using the incentives of a prize to make it happen, to make some breakthroughs happen when it comes to hydrogen. Well, the good news is we've done prizes before. In 1927, Charles Lindbergh won a prize for being the first to make a successful transatlantic flight. It worked with flight, and it worked again here more recently when the Ansari X-Prize was created to incentivize space flight. On October 4, 2004, Burt Rutan's Spaceship 1 became the first private spacecraft with commercial potential, succeeding in going into space twice within 2 weeks; and the result was they won the Ansari X- Prize. So the concept here is to build on that kind of legacy and create the H-Prize. The good news for our colleagues is this shouldn't be a terribly controversial vote. The last time we did it, we got 416 votes in favor of the H-Prize. So it's a do-over with a 416-6 margin last time. So we're hoping that it's going to be successful here today on the floor. As my colleague from Illinois just said, Mr. Lipinski was telling us that the concept is to incentivize breakthroughs in hydrogen technology; and, as he said, technical breakthroughs would be rewarded with a $1 million prize and then prototypes every other year, $4 million. And then the transformational technology prize, the big one, would be a $10 million prize, hopefully augmented by up to $40 million of private money that's authorized under the bill. So the concept is to, basically, create the most nongovernmental way to achieve a governmental purpose, which is to break this dependence on oil. So we've created the H-Prize. It's a way of incentivizing entrepreneurs and inventors to come together and to create teams that can make this breakthrough. The beauty of a prize, two beauties of the prizes to point out here to our colleagues, one is, if nobody does it, you don't pay the prize money out, so they've got to win it in order for us to incur the obligation to pay the money out. That's a good thing about prizes. The second thing that's very important about prizes is the breakthroughs may come from way outside the normal realm that you would expect; and it could be that it's not the normal people or the normal suspects that might come forward with a breakthrough. It may be somebody way afield. For example, hydrogen breakthroughs may come from biological agents that create hydrogen as part of their metabolism. That's way outside the field of where a lot of people are expecting hydrogen production to come from. But if you have a prize that isn't restricted as to how you create the hydrogen, then you get a lot more entrants, and you get interest from a broad range of fields that may come in with the out-of- the-box thinking that can transform our energy supply. So I'm very pleased that we've got it on the floor today. I thank the gentleman from Illinois once again for his collaboration on these topics. I'm hopeful that today we'll pass it with a large margin and that we'll be successful with the other body and then a signature by the President, and this will be one of the ways that we can break this addiction to oil and move to a more stable energy future for America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that setting deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq is unacceptable. I am in agreement with the concept of adding a series of success checkpoints, and I suggested as much in a letter to the President 2 weeks ago. It worked before when we set deadlines for a new constitution and elections, and I think it could work again. But withdrawal is the Democratic leadership's only solution if the Iraqis fall short of the benchmarks. That is simply too simplistic. It is too limiting. It is tying the hands of the President and the Pentagon. We should have benchmarks, but the response shouldn't be all or nothing. These benchmarks should carry a gradation of consequences, rather than an all-or-nothing withdrawal. Pulling back to the perimeter is an obvious step between surging and withdrawal. There are other gradations that our military leaders could propose to the President. To begin an immediate withdrawal upon failure of a benchmark is like writing a lease with an eviction-only remedy for a late payment. It makes sense to have a section in the default paragraphs calling for a late payment fee before you begin the eviction. The leadership in Iraq needs to know that they don't have forever to make the decisions regarding dividing up the oil fairly and regarding returning Baathists to positions of public service. They need to know they don't have forever in coming up with a working model of pluralism. We are providing their protection. We have the right to tell them to hurry. We have an obligation to our servicemen and women to tell the Iraqi factions to hurry. But we don't need to tie the hands of our field commanders and our President with an arbitrary withdrawal date, predetermined by some political purposes and not by what is happening in the Iraq. The circumstances on the ground in Iraq have changed at least three times since we went in--from an action against a dangerous regime, to an action against insurgents, to a civil war between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. The circumstances may change a couple of more times before we get Iraq to reasonable stability, and, who knows, the Iraqis may ultimately want us to retain a base or two. This bill overreaches. This bill improperly limits the options open to our commanders and our troops. This bill makes no provision for any number of successes in Iraq, which are still quite possible. And I urge its defeat.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I wish to address three questions here on the floor today: Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there? First, where are we? We're in phase 3 of a conflict in Iraq. In Phase 1 we overran Iraq in response to an American national security threat. We won. Then came Phase 2. We were forwardly deployed; the terrorists brought the fight to us; we busted up terrorist networks; America was protected from further attacks. We won. Now comes Phase 3. At best, Iraq is engulfed in a sectarian killing spree. At worst, Iraq has descended into a civil war. So where are we? We're thankful for the incredible work of our military in winning Phase 1 and 2. We're aware--and I think all of us are aware--that only the Iraqi people can win Phase 3. We're united in imploring the Iraqi people to choose order over chaos; pluralism over theocracy; and freedom over authoritarianism. As we had the help of the French, the Iraqis have had the help the United States. But just as it was only American patriots who could decide the future of our country, only Iraqi patriots can decide the future of their country. It is a neo-con mistake to charge our war fighters with building an Iraqi national consensus. Iraqis must decide for themselves if they want to live in a unified, peaceful and pluralistic Iraq. No amount of American military might can compel that result. So where are we? Thankful for success in the outcomes that we could control; aware of the outcomes that we cannot control. Where do we want to be? We want the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. The President is wisely pressing them to do so. We want the Iraqi leadership to make some key political decisions that could bring reconciliation. We want them to divide up the oil fairly, to allow banned Baathists back into positions of public trust and to develop a working model of pluralism. We want the Iraqi leadership to know that they don't have forever, that they should settle these reconciliation questions quickly. We want them to know that we are not content to provide an overall security umbrella for their country while they dispatch death squads to kill their enemies and improve their sectarian positions. We want them to know that we're reaching for the button that would lower that umbrella. And we want to avoid the error of nation building. The job of the U.S. military is to crush, kill and destroy the enemies of the United States. They are not nation builders; they are warriors. And they do their jobs very, very well. As commanded, our military entered Iraq to destroy what we understandably believed were threats to our national security. We were successful in destroying those threats and thereafter in interrupting terrorist networks. Those were outcomes that we could control. Now we are rightly asked for inputs that we can control but we are faced with outcomes that only the Iraqi people can control. It is right to evaluate the quality of our forces' inputs, but wrong to hold them accountable for outcomes beyond their control. Diplomats, statesmen, peacemakers and everyday Iraqis must work with us to develop a path to progress--a path that has milestones along the way and which has rewards for meeting those milestones and consequences for failure. Our military must help plan the path because they are the most stable and trustworthy institution on the ground in Iraq and because they are experts at planning and logistics. Since our military is in control of the ``planning'' input, they will rightly be evaluated on the basis of the quality of that planning. Because they are the most trained and capable force in the world, our military must also continue to provide protection for the decisionmakers as they plan the path to progress. The quality of that protection is an input that will rightly be evaluated. Because they are experts at discipline and structure, our military must help define the agreed-upon milestones, the rewards for meeting those milestones and the consequences for missing them. The quality of those inputs will rightly be evaluated. Because they are capable, our military must provide strength for the first steps on the path. The quality of that strength and the capabilities with which it is delivered will rightly be evaluated. Having well supplied those inputs, the American military will leave Iraq successful--in Phase 1, 2 and 3. If the Iraqi people follow the path to progress to a peaceful, pluralist and unified Iraq, they will have been successful. The path may lead to something less. Any lesser outcome is the responsibility of the Iraqi people. So we want a path to progress, and we hope for the blessings of liberty for Iraq. Now. how do we get there? The President has ordered an increase in troop strength in Iraq. He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing room for the development of a path to progress. I'm concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect--that it will give breathing room to the death squads, that our service men and women will be caught in the crossfire and that the surge will end right where it began. In fact, that's what happened in Baghdad in August and September of 2006. I'm concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one hand we're telling them, ``You don't have forever; you've got to make progress in solving these political questions; you've got to stop legging up on your enemies; it's your country.'' By surging, we may be saying, ``Not to worry, we're increasing the size of that American security umbrella; there's no urgency; we're here to stay; in fact, more of us are coming.'' I want all Iraqi factions and leaders of factions to worry. I want them to see us reaching for the button that would bring that umbrella down. I want them to imagine the click of that button and the feel of the wind from the descending umbrella. The resolution before us isn't written the way I would have written it, but it's the resolution before us. Resolutions are the way that Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate with the President. This resolution says, ``We disapprove of the surge.'' Parties on both sides have added additional and conflicting meaning to those words. In the end, I just have to vote on the basis of the words. That's why I'm going to vote in favor of the resolution and express my concern about the effectiveness of the surge. Unlike many others who will vote for this resolution, I will not follow it with a vote to cut off funding. Nor will I follow it with a vote to withdraw immediately. Both of those actions would be mistaken. Some will say that I am too impatient and insistent for decisions from the Iraqi leadership. It's true that it took us nearly 100 years to figure out that slavery was antithetical to freedom. It took us even longer to figure out that women should have the right to vote. But as I had the opportunity to say to one of Prime Minister Maliki's advisors in Baghdad in August, it is our right as Iraq's protector and our obligation to our servicemen and women to insist on a timetable for these decisions. I've only been to Iraq twice. Both times I found that the hardest thing was leaving. While there, surrounded by America's best, I had the sense that I was at ground zero of mission and purpose. The Americans serving in Iraq are the most impressive people in the world. Everyone of them is a volunteer. Everyone of them, everyone of their predecessors and everyone of their non-deployed comrades has offered his or her life in preservation of our lives. America's best deserve our best--our clearest thinking, our freshest analysis, our steadfast devotion. Forget the political consequences; protect no one's ``legacy;'' don't worry about ``saving face;'' make sound decisions; take decisive action. Tell them what their mission is. Discharge the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress. Give them a clear description of the inputs we expect from them. Evaluate them on the quality of those inputs but don't hold them accountable for outcomes they cannot control. Ask them to do accomplishable things. Don't ask them to do the impossible. No amount of force can cause someone to choose freedom, and freedom cannot be given--it must be earned. We have provided the conditions under which freedom can take root. Iraqis must nurture the seed and water it with their own sweat and blood. If they do so, Iraq will enjoy the blessings of liberty. If they don't, our military will nevertheless have been successful.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we face three questions here tonight: Where are we? Where do we want to be? And how do we get there? First, where are we? We are in phase three of a conflict in Iraq. In phase one, we overran Iraq in response to an American national security threat. We won. Then came phase two. We were forwardly deployed; the terrorists brought the fight to us; we busted up terrorist networks. America was protected from further attacks. We won. Now comes phase three. At best, Iraq is engulfed in a sectarian killing spree. At worst, Iraq has descended into a civil war. So where are we? We are thankful for the incredible work of our military in winning phase one and two. We are aware, and I think all of us are aware, that only the Iraqi people can win phase three. It is a neocon mistake to charge our warfighters with building an Iraqi national consensus. Iraqis must decide for themselves if they want to live in a unified, pluralistic, and peaceful Iraq. No amount of American military might can compel that result. So where are we? Thankful for the successes and the outcomes that we can control; aware of the outcomes that we cannot control. Where do we want to be? We want the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. The President is wisely pressing them to do so. We want the Iraqi leadership to make some key political decisions that can bring reconciliation. We want them to divide up the oil fairly, to allow banned Baathists back into positions of public trust, and to develop a working model of pluralism. We want the Iraqi leadership to know that they don't have forever, and that they should settle these reconciliation questions quickly. And we want to avoid the error of nation building. The job of the U.S. military is to crush, kill, and destroy the enemies of the United States. They are not nation builders; they are warriors, and they do their jobs very, very well. As commanded, our military entered Iraq to destroy what we understandably believed were threats to our national security. We were successful in destroying those threats and, thereafter, in interrupting terrorist networks. Those were outcomes that we could control. Now, we are rightly asked for inputs that we can control, but we are faced with outcomes that only the Iraqi people can control. It is right to evaluate the quality of our force's inputs, but wrong to hold them accountable for outcomes beyond their control. Diplomats, statesmen, peacemakers, and everyday Iraqis must work to develop a path to progress, a path that has milestones along the way, and which has rewards for meeting those milestones and consequences for failure. If the Iraqi people follow the path to progress to a peaceful, pluralistic, and unified Iraq, they will have been successful. The path may lead to something less. Any lesser outcome is the responsibility of the Iraqi people. So we want a path to progress, and we hope for the blessings of liberty for Iraq. Now, how do we get there? The President has ordered an increase in troop strength in Iraq. He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing room for the development of a path to progress. I am concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect: that we will give breathing room to the death squads; that our servicemen and women will be caught in the crossfire; and that the surge will end right where it began. In fact, that is what happened in Baghdad in August and September of 2006. I am concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one hand, we are telling the Iraqi leadership, ``Hurry up, you don't have forever.'' On the other hand we are saying, ``No, not to worry. We are increasing the size of the American security umbrella.'' I want all Iraqi factions and all leaders of Iraqi factions to worry. I want them to see us reaching for the button that would bring down that security umbrella. I want them to imagine the click of the button and the feel of the wind from that descending umbrella. The resolution before us isn't written the way I would have written it, but it is the resolution before us. Resolutions are the way that Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate with the President. This resolution says we disapprove of the surge. Parties on both sides have added additional and conflicting meaning to those words. In the end, I just have to vote on the basis of the words. That is why I am going to vote in favor of the resolution and express my concern about the effectiveness of the surge.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 59, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week. It is particularly helpful to have people from all walks of life in this body. It is especially helpful to have Mr. Lipinski as an engineer here, along with some other engineers, to cause us to focus on the crucial need for engineering education in this country. My dad is an engineer. He lost this son to political science and the law. Not everybody can be an engineer. But the folks that can be engineers really will help us solve the challenges of the future. Here is our challenge in terms of numbers: India is graduating somewhere north of 200,000 engineers a year; China is graduating nearly 300,000 engineers a year; and the United States is somewhere in the order of magnitude of 60,000 engineers a year. That doesn't bode well for us. In a technological world, we need more engineers. We need people to enter science, technology, engineering and math education. And so it is a good thing to have a week to celebrate the importance of engineering to the history of the country and to the future of the country. I applaud the gentleman from Illinois' effort to bring this to the floor, and I am in complete support of the resolution and look forward to its adoption.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 540 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life of Carroll Campbell, a great statesman, a passionate voice for economic development in South Carolina, and a good friend. He served the 4th District of South Carolina as a Representative in this body from 1979-1986, and I am honored to serve in the same seat. He also served the state of South Carolina in the State House and Senate, and as Governor from 1987-1995, I am honored to have the opportunity to introduce this bill to name the courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South Carolina as the ``Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse.'' As a Representative for the 4th District of South Carolina, Campbell was a rising star from the start, gaining early seats on the Appropriations and Ways & Means Committees in the 95th to 99th Congresses. He also participated with Lee Atwater in South Carolina's first presidential primary, helping California Governor Ronald Reagan ultimately win the nomination. As two-term governor, Campbell demonstrated his leadership in difficult and uncertain times for the State of South Carolina, He was a trusted voice in the evacuation preceding Hurricane Hugo, and a self- giving leader in the recovery and rebuilding in its aftermath. He is also responsible for attracting prestigious international firms to South Carolina, including BMW, which is in the 4th District. In 2001, Campbell announced in an open letter that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and said his wife Iris and his two sons had joined in the battle. The people of South Carolina were saddened, and joined in prayer for his health and perseverance. The disease claimed his life December 7, 2005. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. by naming the courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South Carolina as the ``Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse.''

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H. Res. 993, the resolution now under consideration.