Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, we are now focusing on airport security. That is appropriate. But in doing that, I hope that we are not neglecting security of other very essential parts of our infrastructure. I am thinking particularly of water. Our vast municipal and public water systems were developed to be economical and to be efficient, and they are both. We are one of the few countries in the world that can water our grass and wash our cars and flush our toilets and fight our fires with drinking water. Our water systems were not developed with any eye toward security. We just passed out of the Committee on Science a very important bill that supports R&D, looking at ways to make our very important water system infrastructure more secure to terrorists. This bill needs to come very quickly to the floor because this is one area of our infrastructure we cannot afford to continue to be at risk.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am shortly going to display a couple of visuals here. The first will be in Russian, and I wanted to present it in Russian because I did not want Members to think that I was telling the Russians something they did not know about our vulnerability. The first of these will show a page from a Russian journal which shows an EMP attack on our country. What Members will see is Russian language, and they will see something which looks like the sun with some rays coming from it, and then Members will see what it does. What it does is disrupt our communication system and disrupt our power system. See the one on the right is in Russian. What it does is melt all of our microelectronics, including our computers. If we think about our power grid and communications grid, if we melt down the computers, we do not have a power and communications grid. This is our translation of it here. All that needs to be done is to detonate a nuclear weapon high above the atmosphere, and what is produced is something equivalent to a simultaneous lightning strike everywhere in the country, or enormous static electricity. We see a miniature of this every time there is a solar storm. This is many, many times as powerful as the pulses we get from that solar storm. If the chart would be put out that shows Yamantau Mountain, and these two are connected, Members will see these are two closed cities of 60,000 people. What is a closed city? A closed city is so remote it does not have tourists. Nobody visits. They have a single mission; 60,000 people live there and they have a single mission, and that mission is working on Yamantau Mountain. If the Russians are going to do an EMP attack on us, they had better have Yamantau Mountain because we are going to respond. I showed this in Russia. I am not giving them any ideas. They knew this before we did. We knew it from the Starfish explosion in 1962. The Russians had done more testing and explosions, and they knew it before we did. They know more about it than we know about it. If they are anticipating an EMP attack on us, and it would be almost certainly the first way they would use a weapon because there is no way they could do as much harm to our economy and infrastructure with ground level explosions as they could do with an explosion above the atmosphere, producing electromagnetic pulse. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it makes sense to feed Russia's paranoia. I have been told that the reason they spent $6 billion on Yamantau Mountain is because they are paranoid, because they do not think that we are their friends, when we are enlarging NATO right up to their border. And they do not think NATO is friendly because for years it was the counter of the Warsaw Pact, and they cannot get it out of their head that this is their enemy. I have no idea why we think it is productive in terms of our national security to enlarge NATO right up to their borders. I am all for a European friendship society. I just do not want one that slaps Russia in the face. We are making great strides. Putin was the first foreign leader to call our President after the terrorist attacks on September 11. Why would we want to do this to the Russian people? For the first time in many years, and I went to Russia recently and I saw the mountains of flowers at our embassy, it was a very moving experience, here are people moving in our direction. Why would we want to move them in the other direction? Mr. Speaker, if we are going to enlarge NATO, let us have Russia as a member. If we do not have Russia as a member, let us not enlarge it. It is threatening to our national security and it is not in our long-term national security interest.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we have here a satellite photograph of a section of the Euro mountains in Russia called Yamantau Mountain. Here is Yamantau Mountain. Just south of Yamantau Mountain are two cities, two closed cities, by the way; and they house about 60,000 people that do nothing but work on Yamantau Mountain. Now, Yamantau Mountain is the largest, deepest, nuclear secure facility in the world. The Soviets and now the Russians have spent about $6 billion on Yamantau Mountain. We have had two defectors from Yamantau Mountain; and with what they have told us, we know roughly what is down there. It is enormous, about the size of inside our Beltway with railroad tracks running in opposite directions and enormous rooms carved out of the rock. Again, it is the most nuclear secure facility in the world. The Russians will not tell us why they are doing it. They have just ramped up activity there. They have built accoutrements there that they do not have in their other cities, tennis courts and so forth. They cannot pay their military. They cannot afford $200 million for the service module of the space station, but this is important enough to them that they keep pouring millions and millions and millions of dollars into it, $6 billion currently. Its only use is either during or postnuclear war. Now, I ask my colleagues, why would Russia do this? When they have all of these needs in their society, why would they pour all of this money into Yamantau Mountain? What I am told is, they are paranoid. They do not believe we are their friends. They are planning for a nuclear war. They apparently believe that it is inevitable and winnable, and they are going to win it with this kind of preparation. We have no idea what they are going to do there, but we know that they are building and spending a lot of money on it. Now, my question is, why at this time in history would we want to feed Russia's paranoia? Why would we want to enlarge NATO right up to their borders? NATO they perceive as a threat to them. For the first time in its history, we used them as an aggressive power in Kosovo. If we want a friendship society, a goodwill society, in Europe, please, Mr. Speaker, call it something else. Do not call it NATO. NATO is very threatening to the Russians. It was set up to counter the Warsaw Pact. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said it did its job. It was very successful. The Warsaw Pact does not exist. Mr. Speaker, this is a very unwise political move. I cannot understand how we could perceive that it is in our national security interest to enlarge NATO and feed the paranoia of the Russians when they continue to pour money into things like Yamantau Mountain. This is not a good bill. I support the rule; I vigorously oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a couple of moments to put the terrorist attacks in perspective. Every day, the 10 leading causes of death in our country result in 5,032 deaths. The fifth leading cause of deaths in our country are accidents. Nearly half of those deaths are caused by automobile accidents. And nearly half of the automobile accident deaths are the result of drunk driving. Every day, about 60 people die as a result of drunk driving. As bad as the terrorist attacks are, we have lost three people to anthrax in the last 9 days. Your chances of being killed by a drunk driver are far, far, far more than your chances of dying from anthrax. Mr. Speaker, we must not allow the terrorists to shut down our government. We must not allow them to shut down our country. Please put this in perspective.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, October 19, 2001, unless the House sooner receives a message from the Senate transmitting its adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 251, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, today America is the undisputed superpower of the world. How did we do that? We do not have the most oil or the most gold or silver or diamonds. We do not have the best agricultural land. But yet we are the envy of every Nation in the world. How did we get here? What I want to spend the next few minutes doing is looking at what made America great, and to do that I am going to plagiarize a sermon given by Dr. Richard Fredericks of the Damascus Road Community Church. In the quotes that I will give, there will be lots of mention of Christianity. I would like to note that in the time in which these quotes were made, Christianity and religion were essentially equivalent terms; so when you hear Christianity, please think God-fearing person, rather than a specific religion or specific sect. After the terrorist attacks, it is important that we celebrate our Nation's independence and freedom; that we pause to reflect on our national heritage as a defender of freedom and justice, to remember that our Founding Fathers and hundreds of thousands since bought our freedom at a price. Freedom is never free. Our national freedom was very costly. Five of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured and executed by the British, nine of them died on the battlefields of the Revolutionary War, and another dozen lost their homes, possessions and fortunes to British occupation. Our birth as a Nation was not cheap for these men. What beliefs and convictions motivated them to do what they did? Increasingly, Mr. Speaker, in the United States today we are told that our Founding Fathers intended there to be this solid, necessary and protective wall erected between Church and State, to separate them, to keep each exclusively in its respective sphere of influence. The key phrase we now use, which first appeared in the judicial vocabulary in the United States in 1947, is the separation of church and state. By and large, Americans have accepted or acquiesced to this new phrase, though it nowhere appears in the United States Constitution or in the first amendment, where the three words ``separation, church and state'' are not even found at all. Actually, those three words first appeared together in another constitution. It is the constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Let me read from article 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state and the schools from the church. The logic behind this phrase is that religion is a private matter that should neither guide nor even be allowed to possibly influence public education, the formation of minds, government legislation, the formation of laws, and judicial rulings on what is legal and just, the maintenance of justice. These are seen as distinctly secular arenas. Religion as a living force must be kept out of any public process that is in any way supported by any level of local, State or federal funds, and this is especially true of Christianity, or it could threaten the rights and liberty or coerce the minds of nonbelievers. A few historic and generic references to God are still allowed. Our coins still say ``in God we trust,'' a statement put there by the United States Congress to remind Americans of the true source of their security. Our Supreme Court and the Houses of Congress still invoke the name of God. Presidents are still inaugurated with their hand on the Bible when taking the oath of office. But each of these traditions is already under attack, and in America today to teach that the great laws and principles of the Judeo- Christian heritage and the morality of the Bible were the unique bases of our national government and offer the guiding norm for our Nation is now an illegal act. Violators of this no-faith-in-the-public-arena dictum are attacked by the American Civil Liberties Union and other watchdog organizations of our now secularized government, legal and public educational systems. Every year teachers are fired for the single offense of answering questions on the meaning of life with a reference to their faith in God, while teachers advocating homosexuality or adultery are protected due to personal rights and freedom of speech. In the grand American experiment, freedom or liberty has always been the key word and the founding principle. Our Liberty Bell quotes from Leviticus 25:10, ``proclaim liberty throughout all the land.'' The Pilgrims came to America not primarily in search of riches. In fact, many of them left riches to come here, but to obtain freedom to worship, as did most who followed them for the next two centuries. The American revolution from Britain was about the establishment of a just and free citizenry. Even our bloodiest war, the one that claimed more American lives than all other U.S. wars combined, the American Civil War, was at its heart a battle over two definitions of freedom. In our day, this American concept of freedom is now defined as the freedom to say anything, show anything, believe or promote anything, and act in any way, with no submission to regard or even respect toward any concept of a guiding prescriptive truth or morality. There is only one kind of freedom of speech the first amendment no longer protects in this new era; that is prayer. Academic freedom has become the freedom of student or teacher to hold or express views against any national organization or patriotic, moral or religious principle without fear of arbitrary interference, except if the student is deemed bigoted, homophobic, chauvinistic, anti-feministic, imperialistic, police-raid patriotic, religious, politically conservative or otherwise politically incorrect. Then he must be shamed. The only sacred virtue that is still taught in our secular universities, one that must be protected, is absolute tolerance towards all views and lifestyles as equally valid, valuable and honorable, except any faith-based moral view that challenges that assumption. Then absolute intolerance toward that person is a virtue. Officially, this all began only about 50 years ago when the Supreme Court made a sharp 180 degree turn. With no historical precedent, they began to uphold the idea that untold damage could be done to American liberty unless the States and courts rejected all recourse or reference to the law of God, the principles of the Bible, and especially the morality and world view that flows from the Christian faith. To allow the Christian faith to shape the public arena is now condemned as unconstitutional, a reference to its United States Constitution and its subsequent amendments. Since then, our children are taught from grade school through college a view of United States history that claims America never really was a Christian nation. The textbooks are bled dry of all Christian references. They are taught that the Founding Fathers were primarily atheists or deists. Deism is a belief that God created the world and then left it alone. He removed himself from its affairs so that there is no divine intervention or interaction. God does not answer prayers or get involved in any way. Students are taught that primarily the atheistic, humanistic philosophers of the enlightenment shaped the thinking and writings of America's earliest leaders. Little or no mention is allowed in the classroom concerning the central role the Bible played in shaping the principles of government which guide our Nation. Increasingly, Christians that seek to express their faith as the guiding factor in their decisions and actions in the workplace, the arena of politics, or in tax-funded education of their children are punished or censored legally and ridiculed personally as dangerous right wing religionists. My goal is twofold: first, I want to set the record straight by exposing the lie that the last 40 years of revisionist history and arbitrary judicial legislation concerning American history, the faith of the Founding Fathers and the intent of the United States Constitution, especially the first amendment, which protects religious freedom; and, second, I hope to instill in our hearts a renewed boldness for believing that only a true Biblical Judeo-Christian world view could and did produce a Nation like ours, and only a distinctive Judeo-Christian world view can sustain it. Now, let me take you back on a journey. Were the Founding Fathers deists or atheists? Actually, 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply-committed Christians. The other three all believed in the Bible as divine truth, the God of scripture, and his personal intervention. This deep personal faith was also true of all of our Presidents until recently. This explains why when you go to Washington, D.C., everywhere you turn there are scriptures written on every monument and building. This explains why the same Congress that signed the Declaration of Independence also formed the American Bible Society, which the second and sixth U.S. Presidents served as chairman of. This explains why after creating the Declaration of Independence, immediately the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this new Nation. They were not deists or atheists, but believed that the foundation of this new Nation must rest on the revealed truth of scripture and morality and the constant sovereignty of God revealed in scripture. Let us let them speak directly. Patrick Henry is called the firebrand of the American Revolution. His words spoken in St. John's Church Richmond on March 23, 1775, ``Give me liberty, or give me death,'' are still memorized by students. But in current textbooks the contents of these words is deleted. Here is what he said. ``An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.'' These sentences have been erased from our textbooks. Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this: ``It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.'' Now to the man that historical revisionists most often claim was a deist, thus who believe God was not concerned in the affairs of men, Benjamin Franklin. Was Benjamin Franklin a deist? Let us allow him to speak for himself. The time was June 28, 1787. Benjamin Franklin was 81 years old, Governor of Pennsylvania and the most honored member of the Constitutional Convention. The convention was deadlocked over several key issues of State and Federal rights when Franklin rose and reminded them of the Continental Congress in 1776 that shaped the Declaration of Independence. This is what he said: ``In the days of our contest with Great Britain when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity to establish our Nation. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, it is probable that a new Nation cannot rise without his aid. We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that built it. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to any business.'' The following year, in a letter to the French Minister of State, Franklin, speaking of our Nation, said, ``Whoever shall introduce into public office the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.'' The other deist, it is claimed, probably with most evidence, was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a great student of scripture who honored Christ as his greatest teacher and mentor but doubted his divinity. But was Jefferson a deist ? On the front of his well-worn Bible Jefferson wrote, ``I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.'' On slavery, Jefferson wrote, ``Almighty God has created men's mind free. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'' For the revisionist, these two men are their best and only shot at deist; and they clearly were not. Yet from them they generalize to all. So let us turn to our other early leaders. George Washington is called the Father of our Nation. Listen to his heart on the Christian faith. In his farewell speech on September 19, 1796, he said, ``It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition,'' that is, the idea ``that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'' What did Washington mean by religion? Was he a true Christian? Let me excerpt several lines from his personal prayer book: ``Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the emaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thee and thy son, Jesus Christ.'' At Mount Vernon, Washington, you can still see the benediction he selected. It is John 11:25: ``I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me shall live even if he dies.'' John Adams, our second President, also served as chairman of the American Bible Society. In an address to military leaders he said, ``We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' John Jay, our first Supreme Court Justice, stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. ``Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.'' In fact, 11 of the 13 new State constitutions were also ratified in 1776. All required leaders to take an oath similar to this oath of Delaware: ``Everyone appointed to public office must say, 'I do profess faith in God the father and in the Lord Jesus Christ, his only son, and in the holy ghost; and in God who is blessed forevermore I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, which are given by divine inspiration.'' At the time of our Nation's bicentennial 1976, political science professors at the University of Houston began to ask some key questions: Why is it that the American Constitution has been able to stand the test of time? Why has it not gone through massive revisions? Why is it looked on as a model by dozens of nations? What wisdom possessed these men to produce such an incredible document? Who did they turn to for inspiration? They spent 10 years cataloging 15,000 documents of the Founding Fathers. They found that the Founding Fathers most often quoted these three men. The most quoted was Baron Charles Montesquieu, who wrote in his Spirit of the Laws, 1748: ``The Christian religion, which orders men to love one another, no doubt creates the best political laws and the best civil laws for each people. The morality of the gospel is the noblest gift ever bestowed by God on man. We shall see that we owe to Christianity benefits which human nature alone can never sufficiently acknowledge. The principles of Christianity, deeply engraved on the heart, would be infinitely more powerful than the false monarchies, the humane virtue of republics, or the servile fear of despotic states.'' The second most quoted was Sir William Blackstone, a devout British law professor who believed all laws must be proved from Scripture, and the third was John Locke, whose treatise on civil government quoted the Bible 102 times. Yet, most importantly, they found that the Bible itself was directly quoted four times more than Montesquieu, six times more than Blackstone, and 12 times more than John Locke. In fact, 34 percent of all of the quotes and the writings of the Founding Fathers were direct word-for-word quotes from the Bible. Further, another 60 percent of their quotes were quoting men who were quoting the Bible, so that an incredible 94 percent of all of the quotes in these 15,000 documents were direct quotes from or references to the Bible. So how did they produce a document that has withstood the test of an evolving government and growing Nation for 225 years? The answer: these men were steeped in the word of God. They understood their need of its constant direction, and they established a Nation based on its undying principles. Let me illustrate this fact more. When the Founding Fathers were trying to figure out the most effective form of government, they came up with the idea of three distinct branches of the Federal and State government. Do we know how they decided that? They looked to Isaiah 33:22: ``For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our law-giver, the Lord is our king. He will save us.'' Further, they decided there must be a clear separation of powers in these three branches of government to protect from the rise of despotism. They based that conviction on a true understanding of the human heart they found in Jeremiah 17:9: ``For the heart is more deceitful than all else and desperately wicked. Who can know it?'' When they sought to develop strong churches throughout the land, and they were encouraged, but not supported, by government funds, they set aside government lands to give to churches, and determined all churches were tax-exempt. We still honor that early conviction. That law was based on Ezra 7:24: ``You are also to know that you have no authority to impose taxes, tribute, or duty on any of the priests, Levites, singers, temple servants, or other workers in the House of the Lord.'' These leaders knew their Bible, and they absolutely trusted its wisdom. So the first great lie in America today is that our Founding Fathers were not Christians seeking to establish a Christian Nation. They most decidedly were. The second lie emerges from the first. It is that the Founding Fathers established a wall of separation between religion, especially Christianity and government, to ensure that these two would not mix. Do you know that 67 percent of Americans today believe that the phrase ``separation of church and state'' is part of the Constitution? Remember, the words ``separation, church and state'' do not ever appear in the first amendment and appear nowhere together anywhere in the Constitution. Here is the truth: our Founding Fathers had every intention of establishing a distinctly Christian Nation. They had every intent of also giving freedom to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. Their intent was to establish a distinctly Christian Nation, but one where no one Christian denomination ruled over the other denominations, as had been the case in so much of Europe. They wanted to honor the fact that under God, all men are created equal in value and rights. John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams. He was a U.S. Congressman, the U.S. Minister to Russia, France and Great Britain; Secretary of State under James Monroe; and the sixth U.S. President. He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest honor and most important role. Celebrating the 4th of July, 1821, President Adams said, ``The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. Mr. Speaker, 104 years later, the 30th President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, reaffirmed this truth on March 4, 1925: ``America seeks no empires built on blood and forces. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.'' He late wrote: ``The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.'' Not only our Presidents, but the Supreme Court, for 160 years consistently and categorically ruled in favor of church and state united hand in hand. The first ruling came in 1796, Runkle v. Winemiller. The Supreme Court ruled: ``By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion of all sects.'' They did not consider religions as equal, but only the different variations or denominations of the Christian faith. The Supreme Court consistently ruled for Christian principle as the foundation of our American laws. In 1811, the Peoples v. Ruggles shows this clearly. Mr. Ruggles' crime was that he publicly slandered the Bible. What would happen today? In 1811, Ruggles was arrested and his case went all the way from New York District Court to the Supreme Court. This was their verdict: ``You have attacked the Bible. In attacking the Bible, you have attacked Jesus Christ. And in attacking Jesus Christ, you have attacked the roots of our Nation. Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity manifests itself in the dissolving of our civil government.'' The Justices sentenced him to 3 months in prison and a $500 fine, one year's wage. This is a more severe punishment than convicted rapists who end up serving on average 85 days in jail. In 1844, Vida v. Gerrard, a public school teacher, decided she would teach morality without use of the Bible. The Supreme Court ruled ``why not use the Bible, especially the New Testament? It should be read and taught as the divine revelation in the schools. Where can the purist principles of morality be learned so clearly and so perfectly as from the New Testament?'' In a landmark decision rendered February 29, 1892, against the claim of the cult called the Church of the Holy Spirit that Christianity was not the faith of the people, the Supreme Court did two powerful things in its ruling. First, Justice Josiah Brewer stated, ``Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that they should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. No purpose of action against our religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to this present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.'' But then the Justices went on, citing 87 different legal precedents to affirm that America was formed as a Christian nation by believing Christians. They even spent for the first 100 years tax dollars for Christian missionaries to do the work of evangelism on the frontiers and granted public lands for churches and church-based schools. Friends, regardless of how we feel about it today, the historical fact is that there was no separation of church and state, other than a lack of government funding of one denomination for 160 years of American history. They were one and the same. The first amendment did not separate religion from government; it simply ensured that no one denomination was favored over all others, as in England. Let us move across the street from the Supreme Court to Congress. One example will suffice. As humanism and Darwinism began to rise in the nineteenth century, some made challenges to the idea that America was a Christian Nation. Both Houses of Congress spent 1 year, from 1853 to 1854, studying the connection of America and the Christian faith. In March 27, 1854, Senate Committee on the Judiciary chair, Senator Badger, issued its final report. Let me quote from this resolution: ``The first amendment religion clause speaks against an establishment of religion. What is meant by that expression? The Founding Fathers intended by this amendment to prohibit an establishment of religion, such as the Church of England presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people. They did not intend to spread all over the public authorities and the whole public action of the Nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy.'' What would they say about us today? I continue to quote: ``In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. By its general principles, the Christian faith is the great conserving element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of our free institutions. That was the religion of the Founding Fathers of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents.'' Based on this report, in May of 1854, in joint session of Congress, this resolution was passed. This is a resolution passed by the Congress, and I quote: ``The great vital and conserving element in our system of government is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'' That was this Congress in May of 1854. Let us move from Congress to our public schools. For over 140 years, after the first amendment was passed, we spent tax dollars to educate students in public schools that were distinctly Christian. In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution, in 1782 our Congress voted this resolution: ``The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in our schools.'' In grammar schools from 1690 until after World War II, two books were the dominant teaching schools. The first and oldest was the New England Primer, used for 200 years from 1690 to almost 1900. The basics of alphabet were taught on Biblical verses. One lesson went this way: ``A, A wise son makes a glad father but a foolish son is heaviness to his mother. B, Better is little with the fear of the Lord than abundance apart from him; C, Come unto Christ, all you who are weary and heavily laden; D, Do not do the abominable thing, which I hate, sayeth the Lord; E, Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.'' The second great teaching tool for 100 years was the McGuffey Reader, which went through three editions and sold over 125 million copies until printing was stopped in 1963. William Holmes McGuffey was the Professor of Moral Philosophy at Jefferson's University of Virginia, and the first President of Ohio University. President Lincoln called him the ``Schoolmaster of the Nation.'' In his introduction to teachers at the beginning of his textbook, McGuffey laid out his rationale. Let me quote just two brief paragraphs: ``The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. ``From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. For all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology.'' He went on to say his only apology is for not using the Scriptures more. Mr. Speaker, why was America great? Because every student coming through our school system was memorizing scripture and learning the Biblical basis of right and wrong, good and evil, sin and salvation. That was the express purpose of our Nation and our Founding Fathers. They were not deists nor atheists, nor were they trying to exclude religion from a guiding role in the Federal Government and all of its institutions. Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636 and named after beloved New England Pastor John Harvard. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1, now this is in Harvard, think about it today, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the Scriptures: ``Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.'' For over 100 years, more than 50 percent of all of Harvard's graduates were pastors. America's law schools for 160 years used Blackstone's Commentaries to train attorneys. Every time that a model case or law was mentioned in Blackstone's Commentaries, next to the law in the margin he would print all of the texts in the Bible that supported and illuminated that law to prove that it was just. Those commentaries trained our lawyers for 160 years, and led to the conversion of many law students. Perhaps the most famous example was Charles Finney, great American evangelist. Finney studied law, became a believer through reading Blackstone, and was used by God to convert 500,000 people in the great revivals of the 1830s and 1840s. Mr. Speaker, this is why America was great. David Moore interviewed Bob Vernon, Assistant Chief of Police in the LAPD, in 1991. Chief Vernon had hosted a visiting delegation of leading police officers from the Soviet Union in 1989 who came to Los Angeles to see the model police force. They talked through interpreters. After several days together, the chief Russian officer stood indignant, pointed his finger, and began to speak vehemently, with passion and conviction. Vernon asked, ``What did I say? How did I offend him? What did I do wrong?'' The interpreter said, ``You did not say anything wrong. He is simply frustrated and asking you: `Why is it that America is going the way of the Soviet Union? Why are you moving in that direction? Can you not see that where we have been, it does not work? Why do you push God aside and seek to build only on yourselves?' ''. That is the question, why? How do we get from where we were for two centuries to where we are in 2001? Let me tell the Members quickly. First, the great lie. In 1947, the Supreme Court in Everson vs. Board of Education deviated from every precedent for the first time and in a limited way affirmed a wall of separation between church and State in the public classroom. This was a totally new approach, a radical change in direction for the Supreme Court. It required ignoring every precedent of Supreme Court rulings for the past 160 years. Then in 1962, less than 40 years ago, in Engle vs. Vitale, the Supreme Court removed prayer from public schools. Since the founding of the Nation, public school classrooms had begun their day with prayer. Now that was declared unconstitutional and an arbitrary use of the word. The prayer that was banished stated this: ``Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country. Amen.'' But the Supreme Court, without any legal precedent, now declared such prayer to be unconstitutional. Really? The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times, twice in sentences that are clearly intended as written prayers. Is our Declaration of Independence unconstitutional? Then things happened fast. On June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Abington vs. Schemp that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The Court offered this justification: ``If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children.'' Again, no legal or historical precedent was cited to back up this ruling, Bible reading was now unconstitutional, though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our Constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government. In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the right of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food. That is against the law in America. In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlined the Ten Commandments in our public school system. The Supreme Court said this: ``If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce schoolchildren to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and obeyed them, this is not a permissible objective.'' Incredible. It is not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments? James Madison, who was the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this about the Ten Commandments: ``We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.'' But the Supreme Court, bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States, ignored Madison's interpretation of his own work. How odd, when above the seat of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to this very day the Ten Commandments are listed with the American eagle standing symbolically protecting them. Yet those justices said, ``Not for our children.'' At the close of every Court session since its inception, the Supreme Court crier said, ``God save the United States and the Honorable Court.'' But we cannot say that in our schools. What has happened in America in these past 40 years? When we were true to our roots, we were the greatest Nation in the world, the dream destination of millions in every country. But starting in 1963, the Bible was banned as psychologically harmful to children. That year, 1963, was the first year an entry about the separation of church and State ever appeared in the World Book Encyclopedia under the United States. What have we reaped? America 100 years ago had the highest literacy rate of any Nation on Earth. Today we spend more on education than any other Nation in the world, and yet, since 1987, we have graduated more than 1 million high school students who cannot even read their diploma. We spend more money than any other Nation in the industrialized world to educate our children, and yet, SAT scores fell for 24 straight years before finally levelling off at the bottom in the 1990s. Has this new protection from religion produced better students? Morally have they changed? Are things better in this new climate of protection from the dangers of religion? In a 1960 survey, 53 percent of America's teenagers had never kissed, and 57 percent said they had never necked, and that is ``made out'' in our current lingo, and 92 percent of teenagers in America said they were virgins in 1960. By 1990, just 30 years later, 75 percent of American high school students are sexually active by 18. In the next 5 years, we spent $4 billion to educate them on how to be immoral through trumpeting the solution of safe sex, and it worked. One in five teenagers in America today lose their virginity before their 13th birthday, and 19 percent of America's teenagers say they have had more than four sexual partners before graduation. The result? Every day, 2,700 students get pregnant, 1,100 get abortions, and 1,200 give birth. Every day, another 900 contract a sexually-transmitted disease, many incurable. AIDS infection among high school students climbed 700 percent between 1990 and 1995. We have 3.3 million problem drinkers on our high school campuses, over half a million alcoholics, and every given weekend in America, 30 percent of the student population spends some time drunk. Three thousand children today will watch their parents get divorced, and over 60 percent of the children born this day will spend part or all of their childhood in a single-parent family. There are a quarter of a million reported cases of child abuse every single year, and one in three girls being sexually abused before they are 18, and one in 5 boys. That is America today. Last year, a young woman in a high school in Oklahoma wrote this poem as a new school prayer. Let me read it for you: ``Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule! For this great nation under God-- Finds mention of Him very odd. If scripture now the class recites It violates the Bill of Rights. And any time my head I bow-- Becomes a Federal matter now. Our hair can be purple, orange, or green. That's no offense, it's a freedom scene. The law is specific, the law is precise! Only prayer spoken out loud are a serious vice. For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no faith at all. In silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited by the State. We are allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks. They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible. To quote the Good Book makes me liable. We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, and the 'unwed daddy' our Senior King. It's inappropriate to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such ``judgments'' do not belong. We can get our condoms and birth controls, Study witchcraft, vampires, and totem poles. But the Ten Commandments are not allowed-- No word of God must reach this crowd. It is scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a mess. So Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot--my soul please take!'' Our Nation, which used to lead the world in every arena, now leads the world in these areas. We are number one in violent crime, we are number one in divorce, we are number one in teenage pregnancies, we are number one in volunteer abortions, we are number one in illegal drug abuse, we are number one in the industrialized world for illiteracy. What happened? First of all, Christianity went to sleep. Forty years ago the church gave up the public arena to an increasingly secular government and said we would focus on the souls of men. Actually, the first leader to call for that division was not one of our founding fathers. His name was Adolph Hitler, who told the preachers of Germany, ``You take care of their souls and I will take care of the rest of their lives.'' The Bible teaches that peace within a Nation comes as God's people stay active and pray for their leaders. Scripture challenges us in 1 Timothy 2:1-2: ``I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayer, intercession requests for everyone, for kings and all in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all goodliness and holiness.'' Here is the million dollar question: Are we better off today? Since we banished God from all our public life and systems and allowed a vocal group of humanist activists to tell us our faith is dangerous to the liberties of this Nation, are we better off? Are we satisfied with what is happening in America? Alexis de Tocqueville was a famous French statesman and scholar. Beginning in 1831 he toured America for years to find the secret of her genius and strength which was marveled at throughout the world. He published a two-part work titled, ``Democracy in America,'' which is still hailed as the most penetrating analysis of the relationship of character to democracy ever written. Here is how de Tocqueville summed up his experience: ``In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but shapes the intelligence of the people. Christianity therefore reigns without obstacle, by universal consequence. The consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle in a moral world is fixed and in force. ``I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her great harbors; her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her universal public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. ``But not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good; and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!'' That is why America was great. That is why America is now a mess. Let me close by suggesting the answer offered us by President Abraham Lincoln in the address he gave calling for April 30, 1860, seeking a national day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, and I read from Abraham Lincoln: ``We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and powers as no other Nation has ever grown. ``But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. ``Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self- sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving Grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.'' This was Abraham Lincoln. Now we have an entire population that has no clue of its true American heritage. They have not forgotten; they have never known or heard the truth of our founding as a Christian Nation. O Lord, forgive us, heal us and lead us to stand for what our fathers fought to give us, to promote the power of the gospel in shaping this Nation and to have the courage of our convictions as Judeo-Christians. May we not shrink back. Abraham Lincoln said this to our Nation. We need to hear it again. ``It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.'' I thank Dr. Fredericks for permitting me to plagiarize his address.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for two reasons. First of all, in a former life, I was a small businessperson who did contract work with the Federal Government. The imposition of this on small business would just be devastating. Secondly, and this is probably the best reason to support this amendment. English is the language of commerce in our country. To encourage people to not learn English does a great disservice to them. That is exactly what this executive order does. It tells people, ``You don't have to learn English, because we'll communicate with you in your language.'' That just is not fair to them. If they are not conversant in English, they are not using the language which is the language of commerce in this country. As is so often the case when we try to help people, we really hurt them. What this does to those who are not fluent in English is really hurt them because we discourage them from learning English. This is a very good amendment and it is especially good for those for whom English is not their primary language because they need to be encouraged to learn English, not discouraged from learning English because it is the language of commerce in this country. And the sooner they learn it, the better they will do in this country. It is unfair of us to discourage them from learning it.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the unanimous support of my colleagues for H.J.Res. 42. This resolution simply requires Federal Government entities to fly the American flag at half staff on Sunday, October 7. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to extend this extraordinary honor in conjunction with the annual memorial service in honor of fallen firefighters by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, which is located in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in the district I have the great privilege to represent in the House of Representatives. The October 7 service is the highlight of the foundation's annual weekend of events to honor the sacrifice of firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty. Particularly this year, we honor the hundreds of firefighters in New York City who on September 11, 2001, gave our country what President Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion to our country. This is the very least that we as individuals and as a government can do to honor and commemorate the selfless call to duty by these brave men and to offer some small measure of comfort to their grieving families, friends, relatives, and coworkers. Madam Speaker, we owe it to them, ourselves and posterity to ensure that their deaths shall not be in vain.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Chairman, the best reason to reject this amendment is because the military medical personnel want you to. It has only been fairly recently we actually had a law enforcing the policy that has been in effect for a long time that we are not going to do abortions in military medical facilities. Our military medical personnel do not want abortions done in their facilities no matter who pays for it. It is very important now to support our military. Please reject this amendment. This is not helpful to our military.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. Under normal circumstances, I would confine my remarks to the provisions in the bill relating to the morale, welfare, and recreation and activities for military personnel in my capacity as chairman of the Panel on Morale, Welfare, and Recreation of the Committee on Armed Services. I certainly wish to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), for his commitment and help. But these are far from normal circumstances. The morale, welfare, and recreation provisions are important, and I commend them to all Members of this great body. More to the point, the overreaching purpose of this bill is to strengthen the national defense. The barbaric, despicable acts of terrorism committed just last week brought home the grim reality to us that our enemies are real, they are clever, and they are determined. We must not rest until others responsible are brought to justice. We in Congress must not rest until we discharge our sacred duty to provide for the common defense of this great Nation. In my opinion, we should have been doing more. However, this is not the time to dwell on what we did or did not do in the past. As Members of Congress, we must fulfill our responsibility to work together to provide the men and women who volunteer to serve in our military with the tools and resources they need to exact justice and ensure victory against the terrorists. I am sure we will have disagreements about exactly how to do that as this effort moves forward. We have to keep focused and united behind the ultimate goal of securing liberty for ourselves and our posterity. This bill and the $40 billion supplemental we passed a few days ago are a good start. More should and will be done, but this bill, as we will amend it today and tomorrow, is a good follow-up to the supplemental, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Americans must defeat evil and uphold our Constitution. September 11, 2001 will be remembered in history. September 12, 2001, is a national day of unity and mourning. Today and in the days to come, we must unite in our response to an unconventional asymmetric act of war against our freedom. We must unite in our resolve to take the steps necessary to defeat the forces of evil that deliberately targeted thousands of innocent men, women, and children to perpetuate a barbarous attack upon America's and the world's preeminent symbols of democracy, a free market economy, and its military defense. We must equally be united and vigilant in our resolve to protect and preserve the rights endowed upon us by our Creator. We must reaffirm the purpose of our government in our democratic republic as stated in our Constitution's Preamble: ``We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.'' In responding to this heinous attack, we must reaffirm our commitment to uphold our Constitution, including the rights guaranteed to every American in the Bill of Rights. These precious rights have been secured by the blood and sacrifices of Americans for more than 225 years. I am confident in the ability of today's generation of Americans to honor those sacrifices and the memories of those killed in the attacks on September 11, 2001. We have an obligation to overcome this latest challenge to freedom while honoring our Constitution and preserving the rights it guarantees for ourselves, our children, and our children's children.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the United States has about 2 percent of the known reserves of oil in the world. We use 25 percent of the world's oil, and we now import 56 percent of the oil that we use. This is up from 34 percent that we imported at the time of the Arab oil embargo. Since 1970, except for a short blip produced by Prudhoe Bay, every year in the United States we have found less oil and pumped less oil. Mr. Speaker, it does not make good sense to me that if we have only 2 percent of the known reserves of oil in the world, that we should rush out and find it and pump it. If we were able to do that tomorrow, what would we do the day after tomorrow? Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced approach, which means we need to rely very heavily on alternatives, and we need to start moving in that direction.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), who has joined me in this effort. For the past 2 weeks, the United Nations has been hosting its convention on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons and all of its aspects. For those who believe that the United Nations intends, if they could, to impose registration, confiscation and destruction of firearms owned by citizens of the United States who are otherwise legally allowed to own firearms, their fears are confirmed by a quote from the U.N. Draft Program of Action. This is a United States document dated January 9, 2001, and let me read from that document: ``States will establish laws and procedures for the safe and effective collection and destruction of weapons which are circulating and available in such quantities as to contribute to high levels of crime and violence.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, who is going to make the judgment of when there is enough there to do that so that they can come in and confiscate and destroy our guns? If this administration was going to be the administration in perpetuity, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and I would not be standing here, because I have no concerns that this administration would do this. But they will not be here forever, and I think it is prudent for us to make sure that this kind of thing could never happen to our people. At an appropriate time, I will withdraw this amendment; but I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy, along with the gentleman from Georgia, if he would, to the end that we hope to work out with him and the administration report language that could go into this bill in conference so that we can make sure that it is very clear that there is no intention that this could ever happen in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for a statement.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, on July 4, our nation will commemorate the 225th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence--an astounding historic achievement for liberty and freedom. It's sad that in 2001, political correctness has replaced patriotism and respect for America's achievements with cynicism and even disrespect. James Merna, Past Maryland Commandant of the Marine Corps League brought this example to my attention during his speech entitled, ``Heroes and Role Models for Today and Tomorrow,'' at the Elks Club Flag Day Observance in Frederick, Maryland on June 10. In May, Mr. Fran Parry, a track coach from Gaithersburg High School in Maryland was suspended for 12 days. Why? He confronted and reprimanded a student who was disrespectful during the Pledge of Allegiance. The student replied that he wasn't American and didn't have to be respectful during the Pledge. It took support and pressure from other students, parents and the community after the incident became public before Coach Parry was reinstated. America has earned our respect and allegiance every day. I submit Mr. Merna's entire speech for the Record and I urge my colleagues and all Americans to read it. Remarks of James E. Merna, Past Maryland State Commandant, Marine Corps League, at the Elks Club Flag Day Observance, Frederick, MD, June 10, 2001 ``HEROES AND ROLE MODELS FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW'' Thank you for inviting me. I am honored to speak to the Elks, one of America's largest and most influential fraternal organizations. At the outset, allow me to extend my congratulations to the Frederick Elks Lodge on the celebration of your 100th anniversary this year. This is an accomplishment of which you should be justifiably proud, for a century of service in brotherhood to each other, to your community, and to the nation. I wish you many more years of good fellowship and service. I have a number of ties to the Frederick community, forged in years of friendship and admiration. Let me mention just three: (1) The Shangri-La Detachment, Marine Corps League. This great organization was originally formed here in Frederick, I believe, in 1948. After many years of service, it became somewhat inactive. A few of us came here in 1968, helped reissue its charter and get it reinvigorated, and today it flourishes as one of the most active detachments in the entire League. I made many good friends here, among them, your own Tommy Grunwell, Ken Bartgis, and the late Charlie Horn. (2) Ben Wright, your football coach here at Governor Thomas Johnson High School. Earlier in his career, before he coached your Patriots, he coached three of my four sons when he was the head football coach at Eleanor Roosevelt High School, in Greenbelt. He's a true winner in every respect, athletically and morally. (3) My son John Merna, Major, U.S. Marine Corps. Two summers ago, John commanded a reinforced Marine rifle company (Echo 2-5) on a five month cruise in the South China Sea. The float was part of the Seventh Fleet whose purpose, besides being a good will mission for the U.S., was to conduct amphibious exercises and training with designated Asian forces. Nonetheless, let me offer a few of my observations on the current fervor, or the lack thereof, for patriotism in America today, and what needs to be done, if anything, particularly with regard to our youth. We can start by asking ourselves, who still observes Flag Day today? We may see a few houses in our neighborhoods who will fly their flags on their porches or in their front yards. But, increasingly, we no longer feel compelled to honor the flag. That kind of patriotic display is steadily be'regarded as old-fitshioned or tedious. Contrast today to a little more than 100 years ago when Flag Day in 1894 drew some 300,000 people to city parks in Chicago alone. Unfortunately, powerful forces in our society, popular culture, and political circles oftentimes emphasize our cultural differences, rather than our unity as Americans. Let me mention a recent incident that occurred only two and a half weeks ago, just down the 270 Pike from here, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which should give us cause for concern. Many of you may already know the story. It was in the Washington Post on May 23rd. It involves a local high school track coach from Gaithersburg High School who was suspended for 12 days for confronting a student who was disrespectful during the school's reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. I was incensed as soon as I heard of this incident. Here we have a 27-year veteran of the Montgomery County school system, a highly successful track coach who has won three state and 15 regional titles, suspended from his teaching and coaching jobs only because he attempted to get a student to show respect while the Pledge of Allegiance was being recited in the school. The coach's name is Fran Parry. He lives a stones throw from here, in nearby Clarksburg. I called and spoke to Coach Parry Tuesday, just five days ago. He told me that it was a spontaneous event, that the student who is a football player and who was on the track team, rushed past the coach who asked him to stop while the Pledge of Allegiance was being recited. The student angrily replied that he wasn't an American and didn't have to. The coach told him that was a bad attitude and that he had relatives who died for the very freedoms that the student enjoys. The student just laughed at Coach Parry and said ``So what.'' The coach told me he didn't think too much of the incident until the next day when he was summoned to the principal's office and told he was being suspended from his duties and placed on administrative leave. The student is black. Coach Parry told me 80 percent of his track team is African-American and they backed the coach 1000 percent. There was not one dissenting voice among them. The coach met with the student's parents, expressed regret over the incident but told them he wouldn't change his message. He was then told by the Deputy Superintendent that he was on leave indefinitely and that there would be an investigation focusing on whether he was a racist. Coach Parry told me that the commimity was unbelievably behind him. Families and students called. He had 29 calls one night from people that he didn't even know, from all cultures. Chris Core, on WMAL Radio, Washington's most popular afternoon radio talk show, had a two-hour call in. Chris Core supported the coach ``110 percent.'' Only two callers dissented. The very next day, Coach Parry told me, he was called by the principal and told he was being reinstated. So here's a case of a student who shows blatant disrespect for the symbol of our freedom and the American way of life, who places the tenure and career of an outstanding and highly successful coach in jeopardy, and walks away blameless. At the same time, Coach Parry was told that he was ``too caustic,'' was suspended from his job for 12 days, and given a letter of reprimand. Something's wrong here. The wrong guy has been punished. This is political correctness at its zaniest. Whatever happened to accountability and personal responsibility for one's own behavior? Instead of being portrayed as the villain, Coach Parry should be hailed as a patriot. Webster's dictionary defines a patriot as ``one who loves his country and zealously supports its authority and interests.'' The coach did what you and I would have done There's more to this story, as I found out in talking to Coach Parry. As I said earlier, the student used to be on the track team at school. He and the coach knew each other well. The student sometimes ate his lunch in the coach's office, used his microwave. Coach Parry even drove him home after track practice at times when he needed a ride. But the student had an attitude problem, and it came to the fore with his disrespect for the Pledge of Allegiance. Where does Coach Parry derive his patriotic fervor? From his dad and his uncle who fought with the Marines on Iwo Jima, the bloodiest battle in World War II. His uncle was with the Third Marine Division. He landed on the beach at Iwo with 48 Marines in his platoon. When he left on a stretcher, 40 of the 48 Marines were killed. The remaining 8, including himself were wounded. Coach Parry's dad was with the Fourth Marine Division. After he learned that his brother was wounded, he visited him later aboard a hospital ship off Iwo. And if that isn't proof enough of Coach Parry's patriotic heritage, I learned that his great-great-great grandfather served in the American Revolutionary War as a sergeant in the First Maryland Regiment, and was wounded in battle in New Jersey while pulling down a British flag. What a legacy. I mention this family history only to put in perspective the total picture. The bottom line, as Coach Parry told me, is that ``people do care--I'm testimony to that.'' He told me that he had just received in the mail an unsolicited musical tape of patriotic songs from a group called ``Friends of America'' from Fort Collins, Colorado. One of the songs was ``I'm Proud to be an American.'' To that, I can only add, thank God that Coach Parry is an American. He's All-American, first team, in my opinion. From this example of Coach Parry, it proves the point that coaches hold a unique place in the educational system of this country. They are not only teachers of young men and women, they are also their leaders. They test their spirit, and at the same time force them to test themselves. Coaches do as much to build the character of the future leaders of our country as any other group Let me tell you about another great coach--one who I regarded as the best coach in America--my high school coach at St. Agnes Home for Boys in Sparkill, New York, one of the two orphanages where I was raised. His name was Jim Faulk, an inspirational leader unsurpassed. When he was inducted into the Rockland County Sports Hall of Fame in 1978, the program citation read: ``Jim Faulk not only was the coach, he was `Mr. Everything' at St. Agnes. He did it all. He was the athletic director, the guidance counsellor, the social worker, the disciplinarian, the trainer, the varsity and J.V. coach for all the sports, which included football, basketball, baseball, wrestling and golf. In his spare time he also ran a full sports program for the alumni. He even drove the school bus.'' In his acceptance speech, he said, ``I made it only because of the gutsy kids I coached at St. Agnes.'' I know he said it because I was there. Jim Faulk came to St. Agnes in 1933, fresh out of the University of Alabama. Through the years, he turned down lucrative offers from Villanova and other prestigious colleges to remain at a much lower salary with the orphan boys and kids from broken homes. He devoted his life to St. Agnes--and to the Dominican nuns there--helping needy youngsters advance through life. He produced football teams so tough that few schools wanted to play him. One of the schools that accepted the challenge was St. Cecelia's High School in Englewood, New Jersey. Its young coach then, just out of Fordham, later went on to fame as head coach of the Green Bay Packers and the Washington Redskins--Vince Lombardi. Coach Faulk tried to set up a game with the New York Military Academy, an During World War II, Coach Faulk took a leave of absence from St. Agnes to join the Marines. He was a Captain in command of artillery units and saw extensive combat in the Pacific, including action at Guadalcanal. He remained in the Marine Corps Reserve in later life and retired as a full colonel. He wrote many inspiring letters from his combat assignments during the war that were reprinted in a newsletter sent out by the nuns to St. Agnes men serving in the military around the globe. He always addressed his letters ``To the Fightingest Boys in the World.'' In one of his letters, as he was aboard ship and waiting to go over the side, he wrote: ``There is absolutely no group of men in this wide world as loyal and devoted to its alma mater and to each other as you fighting boys from St. Agnes. No doubt, as you move from place to place in your travels to all continents and mingle with men from all states and nations, you must begin to appreciate more and more that spirit of St. Agnes--the spirit that is so much a part of your daily lives. ``No one but a St. Agnes boy could understand that deep loyalty and respect you have for each other. Stick together in war as you did in peace. Let the Sisters back home know where you are and what you are doing. Whether a private or a captain, you all speak the same language; you all have the same ideals and you are all heroes in my book. The Sisters feel likewise. They are bursting with pride and joy over your accomplishments.'' That's the type of man Coach Jim Faulk was--always caring, inspiring, encouraging and motivating St. Agnes men to excel and achieve. And many St. Agnes graduates heard his message and followed in his footsteps. Let me mention some of them. St. Agnes had as many as 600 kids fighting in World War II. Over 40 were killed, hundreds were wounded, and many were decorated for bravery. Guys like: Charlie Loesch, who lost his leg in the muddy mountains of sunny Italy. (His reaction: ``when I get my artificial leg, everything will be just the same as when I had two genuine legs''); 1st Lt. A.J. Fabrizi, who completed 50 bombing missions over enemy territory with the 15th Air Force in Italy; Francis Mahon, who went back to Walter Reed Hospital for the third operation to save his eye; the mother of Bill Callahan wrote to let us know her son was a P.O.W. His address then was Stalag 17 B, Germany; Frank Napoli paratrooper, won the Silver Star and the Purple Heart after major landings in Sicily and Salerno, Italy; Sam Torresse who Coach Faulk wrote to and said, ``I was sorry to hear about your wounds . . . it will take more than a Nazi to flatten you''; Jim Nestor--Coach Faulk talked to other Marines who were with him when he gave his life on a ridge in the Marianas ``trying to prevent a breakthrough of fanatic, drunken Nips''; and Captain David Loeser, Army, killed in action in Luxembourg, the first St. Agnes kid to attain the rank of Captain. I could go on and on, but as Coach Faulk said, these were gutsy kids, and true heroes they were. They were my legacy, they are yours, and they are America's. Literally hundreds and hundreds of St. Agnes men, including two brothers and myself, joined the Marine Corps, inspired by the example set by Coach Faulk. I had two other brothers join the Navy. Coach Faulk was, in my opinion, probably the greatest unofficial recruiter the Marine Corps ever had. Jim and his wife Betty were never blessed with children. We took care of that. Some of us named our children after him. My oldest son is named James Faulk Merna. Coach Faulk was very proud of his namesake and visited him with much pride when he was a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy. Our son graduated with the Class of 1987, is married with two children, and is a lawyer with the most prominent law firm in Atlanta. Coach Faulk once told me in a letter, while I was in Korea during that war, ``One character trait that I admired in all of you St. Agnes men--you went out into the world with two strikes on you, and never expected to be embraced, gave your all for your country when it asked, and, now, most of you are raising families who can truly say--my father came up the hard way.'' Now you can see why I said earlier that someone like Coach Faulk was the greatest coach that I have ever known. Our nation needs strong coaches like Coach Faulk, Coach Parry, and Ben Wright, because they are doing as much to build the character of our future leaders as any other group of men or women. One last final thought. Our nation is in the midst of a huge nostalgia fest with the Second World War. A number of ``Greatest Generation'' books have been written, the best by Tom Brokaw of NBC News, box-office attendance records have been set for the new blockbuster movies like ``Saving Private Ryan'' and now ``Pearl Harbor.'' There has also been significant publicity about the World War II Memorial now finally approved for the Mall in Washington, D.C. Let us build on this momentum. We have elections coming up next year, and another Presidential election in 2004. As George Will pointed out recently, during the last administration, at times, we had a president, a CIA director, a Secretary of Defense, a Secretary of State, and a National Security Advisor, none of whom had any military experience. It's almost as appalling in the Congress. According to the National Association for Uniformed Services, in 1965, 82% of the members of Congress and 80% of the staffers had military experience. Now less than \1/3\ of Congress and 5% of their staff have had any military experience. And on the civilian side, only 6% today of Americans younger than 65 have ever served in uniform. Those numbers by themselves are not alarming because it's recognized that we are not at war and we have at present an all-volunteer military. We just need to be sure that we elect public officials who have a greater understanding and a strong commitment to support our national security and defense by deeds, not mere words. We need their solid support, as well as from local school board officials, for military recruiters who were denied access to high school campuses 19,228 times in 1999. Thank you for inviting me to participate in your Flag Day celebration today. As members of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, you have long set an example the rest of us must try to follow if we are going to preserve for our future generations the same priceless treasures of liberty and freedom which our forebears passed on to us.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I will include in the Record a brief report from GAO called ``U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda'' for the years 1992 through 1996. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. These documents which will be included in the Record indicate that the United States has spent about $18 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. There are reports from CRS, from GAO, and from Department of Defense itself, all corroborating that we have spent about $18 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. Through the years 1992 through 1996, we have been credited for $1.8 billion of that against dues. There has been no other accounting and no other credit with the U.N. for the moneys which we have spent on U.N. peacekeeping activities. Before these funds are released, our amendment says that the Congress needs to know the cost of peacekeeping activities for which we have not been given credit by the U.N. This report is to be issued on or before September 30, 2001. The funds will be withheld until that date. If the report is issued before that, then the funds can be released before that. Mr. Chairman, I would note that this sequestering of this payment to the U.N. is a much shorter period of time than the sequestering which has already been accomplished by a prior amendment. Again, this is a very simple amendment which simply intends to inform the Congress and the people of the United States, through a report of the GAO, of all of the moneys that we have spent on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. My hope is when this report comes to the Congress, that the people of the United States seeing the report of the GAO, and the Congress seeing this report will ask for an accounting; but our amendment does not withhold the payment beyond the issuing of this report or beyond September 30, 2001, whichever occurs first. The American people need to know the amounts of money that we have spent and not been given credit for. Congress needs to know that the reality is with all of these moneys that we have spent on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities, we have paid our dues several times over. But notwithstanding that, this amendment does not prevent the release of this last payment of the dues, it simply withholds it until the report is issued and the Congress and the American people have a chance to look at the report, or September 30, 2001, whichever occurs first. The report previously referred to is as follows: [U.S. GAO Report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, March 1996] Peace Operations: U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and International Affairs Division, Washington, DC, March 6, 1996. Hon. Robert Dole, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. Dear Senator Dole: As requested, we are providing you information on U.S. agencies' estimated costs for their support of U.N. peace operations in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia for fiscal years 1992 through 1995. For this report, we define peace operations as actions taken in support of U.N. resolutions designed to further peace and security, including observers; monitors; traditional peacekeeping; preventive deployment; peace enforcement; security assistance; the imposition of sanctions; and the provision, protection, and delivery of humanitarian relief. background U.S. agencies' costs in support of peace operations are paid from their congressional appropriations. These costs include expenditures for (1) direct participation of U.S. military forces, (2) the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping assessments, and (3) humanitarian and related assistance. The Departments of Defense (DOD) and State are the two lead agencies responsible for planning and implementing U.S. participation in peace operations. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the primary agency responsible for providing humanitarian assistance, including food donated by the Department of Agriculture, USAID provides humanitarian assistance through the United Nations and private organizations. The Departments of Justice, Commerce, Treasury, Transportation, and Health and Human Services are also involved in activities in support of peace operations. The agencies' specific actions related to the four peace operations are presented in appendix I. Results in Brief From fiscal years 1992 through 1995, the incremental cost reported by U.S. government agencies for support of U.N. peace operations in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia was over $6.6 billion (see table 1). The United Nations has reimbursed the United States $79.4 million for some of these costs.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if one would imagine with me an infant in a nursery in a hospital on life support. There is a terrorist bomb or an arsonist fire, and that infant and several others are killed. Can one imagine an argument that says that those babies that were not on life support were murdered but the baby on life support was not murdered? Mr. Speaker, the preborn baby, in its mother's womb, is simply on life support through the umbilical cord. When a pregnant woman is killed, clearly two lives are snuffed out. There are two murders. When a woman is assaulted, sometimes with the intention of killing that preborn child who is simply on life support in her womb, indistinguishable from a baby just born, clearly that also is murder. This legislation is long past due. Defeat the amendment. Support the base bill.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this morning we had a guest chaplain who opened our session with prayer. We have a full-time chaplain. So does our Senate. So do a lot of athletic teams and our military services each have a large number of chaplains. And our schools have condoms. Mr. Speaker, I wish that you could help me and at least 150 million other Americans understand why chaplains and prayers are good for our House of Representatives, good for our Senate, good for our athletic teams and good for our soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen. And condoms are good for our kids. Is this a case of selective insanity?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has proposed a package of tax relief that includes across-the-board tax relief for everyone. His plan even takes 6 million Americans off the tax rolls all together. It is a fair and balanced proposal that will certainly benefit hard-working Americans and offer them more flexibility on how they want to spend their money. One thing America offers is opportunity for all. That is why our plan does not seek to redistribute wealth, like some Democrats wish to do. We realize that everyone who pays taxes ought to get relief. There must be an incentive for Americans to create jobs and businesses. Freedom and capitalism is why our country is the world's greatest Nation. Our legislation gives back some of what taxpayers have overpaid to the government so that they can get a new washer and dryer or get their children new school clothes or even pay some of the college tuition or car bills that cost so much nowadays. The bottom line is that it is the taxpayers' money. They can spend it much better than anyone in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are going to provide tax relief to all Americans. The President and leaders in Congress are trying to reach out to the opponents of our plan in order to foster a bipartisan agreement without compromising the needs of the taxpayer.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the surplus means it is time for immediate across-the-board tax relief for all taxpayers to boost our economy, create jobs, and give Americans more confidence by returning some of their surplus taxes to help them get through these uncertain times. We need to cut taxes for every American, especially low-income families. President Bush's tax plan will get the tax surplus out of Washington and back into the pockets of working men and women. The Republican Congress has united behind it. It is time that Americans get tax relief, sooner rather than later. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is going to take in about $28 trillion in taxes over the next 10 years. We are proposing to give back $1.6 trillion. That is about 6 pennies out of every dollar. That is not a whole lot. We are saying that taxpayers should take this money and buy their kids school clothes, buy appliances for their homes, use it to pay utility bills, to help their house payment or their car loan. Mr. Speaker, this money belongs to the American taxpayers. We need to give it back to them.