Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a dear personal friend and a great servant to our country and the United States Congress. I am joined tonight in this historic Chamber of the United States House of Representatives in our Nation's Capitol by many colleagues of the 108th Congress. We are all trying to do what is impossible. We want to share with those who listen and with posterity a glimpse of the extraordinary accomplishments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) as an individual and as a legislator. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is a giant. In 40 years of participating in the political life of our country, his ideas, energy and leadership contributed structure, muscle and heart to the ascendancy of conservative philosophy and a Republican majority in the United States Congress. Could this change have been envisioned without the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane)? I doubt it. Could this change have occurred without the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane)? I doubt it. This giant on the American political stage was a mentor and became a friend to me very quickly after I was sworn in as a Member of Congress in January of 1993 as a 66-year-old freshman. That is when I came to know him. This is where I can offer my personal tribute to him. Indeed, I knew of him and admired him many years before that. I can remember in 1980, in meeting with personal friends and conservatives, when we mentioned the conservative movement and we were looking for an icon, someone who really represented that movement, it was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). I had never seen him. I had never met him. But I knew him through my many friends who had admired him for a number of years before I became politically interested. And then the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) came more than 13 years ago when I was running for Congress. I did not have a chance of winning, but he came anyhow, and he came to a little local town, and he did a fundraiser for me. So I am here partly because of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and his confidence in me. For many years here I attended every Wednesday afternoon the ACORNS meetings in his office. What a privilege and an opportunity to meet there some of the Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, who had gone on before and all of the history that they shared, and I remember fondly all of those ACORNS meetings in the gentleman from Illinois's (Mr. Crane's) big office, and he had an enviable office here in the Congress. He deserved it. He had been here longer than any other Republican Member of the House. America is different because of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). The most influential think tank in our Nation was started by a protege of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the Heritage Foundation. His shadow and his legacy is very long indeed. This House will not be the same without the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). My heart has missed a number of friends that I have made here in this House, but I will tell my colleagues I will most fondly remember and most intensely miss my friendship with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). He is indeed a giant. I thank him very much for his service to his country and for his friendship to me.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. This amendment, which is the text of H.R. 3583, will establish a study to provide an objective analysis of whether the current capabilities of the infrastructure in the region around our Nation's capital are adequate in the event of a mass casualty disaster. I have worked closely with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), and I have worked closely on this legislation; and we are very pleased by the wide bipartisan support of our colleagues in Maryland, Washington, and Virginia. This amendment calls upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a commission to report to Congress its findings. In particular, I have looked forward to working with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to address her concerns concerning the implementation of this amendment. I will commit to the gentlewoman to ensure that the GSA will have major input into the study, that it will not predispose an alteration of the definition of the national capital region, and that it will assess existing emergency response capabilities among the public and private sectors in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, what capabilities would be necessary in the event of a mass casualty incident and recommendations to correct any shortfalls. This commission will specifically study the major Federal interstate highways out of America's capital. Normal rush hour traffic around our Nation's capital can last as long as 4 hours. In the event of a terrorist attack or other emergency in Washington, D.C., millions of people would be unable to evacuate and get home to their families. In June 2003, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Board urged Congress to analyze whether the current definition of the national capital region meets current needs. I am pleased that they support this amendment. I would also like to recognize an important local health care provider, Adventist HealthCare. Adventist HealthCare has two hospitals, Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park and Shady Grove Adventist in Rockville, along two of the designated evacuation routes developed by the D.C. Division of Transportation. Adventist HealthCare has independently committed to invest over $360 million to develop and begin implementing a comprehensive plan to ensure that they are prepared for the potential of a mass casualty event. Cooperation and coordination between relevant Federal Government agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and private sectors, are very important. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on 9/11, our world changed. What used to be adequate for the greater metropolitan area of Washington, which is defined by the national capital region, generally, what was adequate then may not be adequate now. This is a very simple amendment. It simply asks for a commission to study; we need to look at what the national capital area represents, and is the infrastructure here adequate to meet the kind of a terrorist attack that we might anticipate in the future? It is a very simple amendment, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, many thanks to our great chairman and ranking member for a job well done. Our subcommittee portion of H.R. 4200 will provide the men and women in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force with better tools now and in the future to meet the challenges to win the war on terrorism and ensure continued U.S. Naval superiority. One reason for that is the dedication of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). I am grateful for our strong and cooperative relationship. I am also very pleased by the hard work of all of our colleagues on the Subcommittee on Projection Forces. I want to add a very special thanks to our very good and hardworking staff. One of the most important provisions in this bill is a shipbuilding initiative to strengthen the ability of America's shipyards to compete in the global marketplace. The LHA(R) amphibious assault ship program initiative will ensure that the Navy and Marines will benefit from improved capabilities while stabilizing America's industrial base capacity. It would not have been possible without the leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and Secretary Young. Other shipbuilding initiatives include commencement of the LCS, Littoral Combat Ship, and the DD(X) advanced destroyer programs and a modernization program for the DDG-51 Aegis destroyer. The bill supports modernization of the B-2 bomber and the development of the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter. This bill is critical to meet the challenges and demands placed upon our armed services to prevail in the global war on terrorism. It strikes a fine balance between modernization of existing weapons programs and platforms and the development of new systems. This is an extraordinary challenge. The surest path to peace is to prepare for war. With H.R. 4200, we take important steps to equip our forces for the future. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4200.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, recognizing the contribution and sacrifice of our brave astronauts is certainly reason enough to support this resolution, but there may be a justification which is equally important. For a number of years now, decreasing numbers of our young people have aspired to careers in science, math, and engineering. This puts us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Indeed, many of our companies in this country must solicit overseas for workers in these technical areas because we simply are not turning out enough in this country. For the short term, this is a threat to our economic superiority. We will not continue to be the world's premier economic power if we do not turn out scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in adequate numbers. For the longer term, it is a threat to our national security. Our military prowess is now the envy of the world. That cannot continue to be so for the future if we do not turn out well-trained scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in large enough numbers. Hopefully, as young people come to this learning center, they will be inspired once again to pursue careers in science, math, and engineering. This will be good for them. It will certainly be good for our country.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes marriage. In the Christian community, and we are a Christian Nation, you can affirm that by going back to our Founding Fathers and their belief in how we started, among Christians, marriage is generally recognized as having started in the Garden of Eden. You may go back to Genesis to find that and you will note there that God created Adam and Eve. He did not create Adam and Steve. A union between other than a man and a woman may be something legally, but it just cannot be a marriage, because marriage through 5,000 years of recorded history has always been a relationship between a man and a woman. More than just Christian societies have marriage. And why would every recorded society through 5,000 years of recorded history, why would they all have marriage as a union between a man and a woman? It is because societies, one and all, have recognized that marriage is a very important institution. And why is it important? It is because the usual product of marriage is children. And the state, or the tribe or whatever the organization is, all through history recognized that there is a responsibility for the assurance that the children brought into the world as a result of marriage are going to be cared for, which is why all of these societies have recognized that children should not be born out of that relationship, and that relationship is fundamentally there to make sure that their society is going to be perpetuated because children are going to be cared for, if not by the parents, then by the society that has recognized this relationship. I think that a society is at risk when the institution of marriage, so fundamental to the stability of society, is put at risk. So I am in strong support of this rule and the bill that follows.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would note that I had mentioned that not only Christian nations but every society through 5,000 years of recorded history has recognized the institution of marriage as being essential to the stability of their society. We are a Christian society, but I recognize that every other society, no matter what their origin, has certified that marriage is important to the stability of their society. It is to ours. It was to theirs. I support the rule, and I support the bill.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, we lost about 3,000 people on 9/11. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, how long it took for cigarettes to kill 3,000 people? It took a bit less than 3 days. The loss of those 3,000 people on 9/11 changed our world, and yet, today, more than 3,000 young people will start smoking cigarettes, and more than 1,000 of them will die prematurely. Where is the outrage? I cannot yell ``fire, fire,'' in a crowded theater, because the logic is that somebody might get hurt trying to get out of the theater. Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, does it make any sense that I cannot yell ``fire, fire,'' in a crowded theater, but we can advertise cigarettes in such enticing ways that 3,000 young people will start smoking today? I contend that somebody from another planet who is coming here in a UFO might not want to land until they learned more about a society that totally changes its world when 3,000 people die, but they do not seem to care when, the last year for which I saw data, 472,000 people died from smoking cigarettes. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to spend $10 billion, I would be happy to spend $12 billion productively to do something about cigarette smoking and the scourge to our country. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you know or not, but smoking cigarettes kills more people, is a bigger health problem than addiction to all other habit-forming drugs combined. Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of proportion? I would be happy to spend $12 billion if it would do good, if it would reduce some of those more than 1,000 young people out of those 3,000 that will start smoking today that are going to die prematurely from smoking cigarettes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment sends the right message. Let us vote for it.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the cost of basic and applied research is priceless. Most Federal Government R&D is by the military with a current goal for basic research of 3 percent of the DOD budget. The National Science Foundation supports nearly 50 percent of the nonmedical basic research at our colleges and universities, including the University of Maryland, which comprises only 4 percent of Federal R&D spending. Federal Government military R&D spending peaked in 1962 and declined beginning in 1965 until President Reagan's first term, during which R&D rose and surpassed 1962 levels and peaked in 1987. It then declined in 1993. Beginning in fiscal year 1996, bipartisan support in the Congress supported increases in R&D above administration requests. Beginning in 2000 the downward trend was reversed. President Bush's increases have been increased further with bipartisan support. The United States spends a smaller percentage of our GDP on R&D than any other major industrial power. That is the exact equivalent of a farmer eating his seed corn. Tomorrow's innovations come from today's R&D. America will remain the world's premiere military and economic leader only if we increase our spending on R&D.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, as chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee, I believe it appropriate to first underscore the magnificent service rendered the Nation by the men and women serving in our Armed Forces around the world. We have called upon them and continue to call upon them to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice in their service to the Nation. They continue to meet every challenge with true dedication and commitment. We thank each and every one of them for their service, and we thank all Americans for their unwavering support of our servicemen and women. History has repeatedly taught us that peace is only achieved through strength. We have sought to apply the lessons learned from the ongoing war on terrorism and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to the committee markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in order to strengthen our Armed Forces. Oceans cover three-fourths of the Earth's surface. The vast majority of the world's population lives within 2 miles of a seacoast. Seventy percent of our trade moves by sea. Clearly, maintaining America's naval superiority is an imperative, not an option. I am pleased to report that the National Defense Authorization Act that we will consider increases the requested authorization for Department of Defense programs within the jurisdiction of the Projection Forces Subcommittee by $890 million; $296 million of the additional authorization is for programs on the military service chiefs' unfunded requirements list. Authorization is included for the administration's request of one Virginia Class submarine, three DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17 amphibious assault ship, and two cargo and ammunition ships. We have also taken several initiatives to begin to address shortfalls in important requirements of the Department of Defense. All of these programs are viewed as critical enablers for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These programs include $150 million additional authorization to begin development of the amphibious assault ship replacement; $96 million as the fiscal year 2005 increment to begin the regeneration process to restore 10 additional B-1s to combat-ready condition; $98 million to upgrade the fleet of B-2 bombers; $100 million to continue a next- generation bomber program to replace the now 42-year-old B-52 bomber fleet; $95 million to begin the recapitalization of the Air Force's aging aerial refueling tanker fleet; and $23 million to complete development and evaluation of the Affordable Weapon System, a low-cost cruise missile that is the successful result of an Office of Naval Research advanced technology initiative to demonstrate the ability to design, develop, and build a capable and affordable precision-guided weapons system at a cost that would be an order of magnitude cheaper than comparable weapons systems; and increased authorization for several procurement and research and development programs of the services. In addition, the recommended mark includes important legislative proposals: to accelerate the DDG-51 Aegis guided missile destroyer modernization program; and to establish an independent body of manufacturing experts to find ways to again make the United States shipbuilding industry competitive. Ad hoc government policy and business management adjustments to reductions in the fleet from 600 to less than 300 are not adequate or acceptable to make the necessary short-term and long-term decisions to maintain the capacity and capability of this critical and complex industrial base. Once lost, that industrial base cannot be easily reconstituted. This study will rigorously analyze all of the relevant factors and make recommendations to ensure the capability of America's shipyards to build the ships for our Navy and to be competitive against other shipyards in the global marketplace. While there is much more to do, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 is an important step in making our country more secure. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the ranking member of our subcommittee, for his extraordinary partnership, dedication, and support in completing this bill. I would like to thank all of my other colleagues on the subcommittee for their diligence, commitment, and hard work. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), our chairman, for his leadership; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member. In conclusion, I would especially like to thank and recognize the contributions of the many staff members for their invaluable assistance in preparing H.R. 4200.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying respect to one of my constituents, Lieutenant Commander Daniel Pettigrew, U.S. Navy, retired, of Middletown, Maryland, who passed away on Wednesday, April 21. Dan Pettigrew was a 26-year Navy veteran, retiring in 1974. He served his country with distinction, and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the National Navy Achievement Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, the Navy Unit Commendation, and the Navy Marine Corps Medal. Dan was as member of Middletown United Methodist Church; VFW Post 3285 John R. Webb, Frederick; Masonic Lodge AF&AM in Massachusetts. He also served as a national legislative director for the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees. In his role at the USDR, he worked tirelessly on the issues of concurrent receipt, veterans health care, and VA disability compensation. Dan's last 6 years were spent walking the halls of Congress bringing the message about the needs of military retirees, veterans, and their families across the Nation. Please join me in remembering Dan and his valiant causes that he supported so diligently for our veterans, military retirees, and their families.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this Earth Day I want to recognize a company from my district that is making a product people want and is beneficial for the environment. NaturaLawn is a business located in downtown Frederick, Maryland. Starting small in 1987, they have grown to become the fourth largest lawn care service provider in the United States, generating in excess of $24 million. NaturaLawn identified a product that would have popular appeal, an organic-based fertilization program that uses naturally based ingredients as opposed to traditional chemical fertilizers. This product is environmentally friendly and provides a desired product. The company has created many franchises across the Nation. All of these great things were done privately in our free enterprise system of Congress. No governmental regulations or mandates caused this business to exist, simply good sense, hard work, and a desire to create products for people who want to purchase environmentally friendly services for their lives. Congratulations to this innovative company for its success in helping create jobs and protect the environment through private enterprise.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a moment talking about the debt and some terminology that we use. I suspect there is not one person in 100 outside the beltway, and maybe not many more than that inside the beltway, that knows that the public debt and the national debt are not the same thing. For about 4 years we were telling the American people that we were paying down the public debt. That was true. The implication was that we were paying down the debt which the government owes and that was not true. Let me explain why that was not true. The total debt that we owe is called the national debt, and that is made up of two subparts. One of those subparts is the public debt, and the other subpart is the trust fund debt. The public debt is the Wall Street debt. And the lockboxes we had on Social Security and Medicare, and these lockboxes did nothing to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, they are totally unrelated to the future of these two funds, what the lockbox said was if we had a surplus, and we did and do for the moment in those two, that we cannot use that surplus for ordinary spending. We have to use it to pay down the debt. The debt that we pay down with that is the public debt. But for every dollar that we pay down the public debt, the trust fund debt goes up a dollar, and the total of those two debts, which is the national debt, does not change at all; but there are 50-some trust funds and only two of them had a lockbox or have a lockbox now. So we took the surpluses, and there are surpluses in others, like the civil service retirement and railroad retirement and transportation trust fund and there are surpluses in some of those, and so we happily took those surpluses and spent them.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. That is true. I checked with GAO, and they told me that although there were 14 months during those four periods when revenues exceeded expenditures, if we kept our books on an accrual basis, like we force every business that handles more than a million dollars a year to do, there never was a moment in time when the debt went down. What that meant, of course, was that we were getting ever closer and closer to the debt limit ceiling. I kept teasing Members by quoting the Bible, ``Surely your sin will find you out.'' What are you going to tell the American people when we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling limit when we have been telling them all this time that we are paying down the debt? As a matter of fact, we had to do that in a very interesting evening. We debated until about midnight. We debated for hours. We were being harangued, how could you be so irresponsible? How could you run up the deficit and the debt? At midnight we recessed and we convened the Committee on Rules. They came out with a rule about 1 a.m. that said we were going to debate the rule for 1 hour and then go immediately to a vote on the bill. So we did that, and we raised the debt limit ceiling. As Members know, because we were embarrassed by that, we decided we would not want to do that again in the future. So what we did, without my vote and against my wishes, we voted the Gephardt amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. What we did was to incorporate the Gephardt amendment, which said whenever we pass a budget resolution that the debt limit ceiling would be raised whatever it needs to be raised to accommodate the spending anticipated by the budget resolution. But budget resolutions do not include emergency supplementals, and we keep voting emergency supplementals because we do not want the budget resolution to be such a high number. In the future, there will be another debate on raising the American debt limit ceiling, and I hope America is listening when we do that. What we are doing is amassing the largest intergenerational debt transfer in the history of the world. We cannot run our government on current revenue, and so what we are doing is systematically borrowing from our kids' and grandkids' future. When I ran for Congress 12 years ago, I promised those who I hoped to be my constituents, and they are my constituents now, that I would try to conduct myself here so my kids and grandkids would not spit on my grave because of what I have done to their country. I am still trying to do that. I think it is unconscionable for us to amass this larger and larger debt that we are going to pass on to our kids and grandkids.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. What we are doing is systematically borrowing from our kids' and grandkids' future. We cannot run our government on current revenue, so what we are doing is borrowing from their future. When it comes their turn to run the government, not only will they have to run it on current revenues, but they will also have to pay back all of the moneys we borrowed from their generation. We have a systemic problem here, and that is by law the only place we can invest these surpluses is in nonnegotiable U.S. securities. These surpluses are the order of magnitude of about $200 billion a year, more or less. The only place we can invest them is in nonnegotiable U.S. securities. There is no money laying around Washington we have not spent. As a general rule, government spends all of the money you give it plus as much more as it can get away with. This government is no different. I think it is important for our people, our kids and grandkids, to understand what we are doing. The reason I am so concerned about this fact that we are hiding some of the deficit is that it is obscuring the magnitude of the problem. I think the American people want us to balance the budget, and I think they want us to do it honestly. Last year we were told that the deficit was about $500 billion, but the debt went up $700 billion. That is because the $200 billion in Social Security surplus and Medicare surplus that we took and spent is not called deficit, but it does represent debt.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I would hope, because we cannot continue to amass this ever-increasing debt. As the gentleman stated, interest rates are now very low, and still interest on the debt is a meaningful percentage of the largest item in our budget, which is defense. When interest rates go back to normal levels, the interest on the debt will be just about as much as we are spending on defense.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. By the way, the interest on the debt is part of what we call mandatory spending. Our total expenditures this year will be about $2.4 trillion. We will vote on about one-third of that, about $800 billion, and about half of that will be defense. Defense is running roughly half of our total discretionary spending. This mandatory spending is kind of hidden, but it represents two-thirds of all of the money that we spend.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, a bit more than half of all the expense budget is salaries, and we now do not have enough military personnel, who are having to extend their tours. They have been on the ground over there, reservists on the ground for a year, and now they are being extended for 3 or 4 months. So obviously unless we are going to have fewer people in the military, we are not going to be able to cut defense spending. So the gentleman is right. In a sense a lot of that is mandatory because we cannot imagine a smaller military because our present military is really not large enough to do what we are now attempting to do because we are having to extend reservists who have already been there a year.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, we need to get back to constitutional government. Thomas Jefferson said, The government which governs best is the government which governs least. Now we are a million miles from his dream of what his country would be at this time in history. And we need to look at our Constitution at what our Founding Fathers believed the Federal Government ought to be doing. And there are several things that we spend a lot of money on, and I will challenge my colleagues to go to Article I, Section 8, and that is the part of the Constitution that delineates the appropriate functions, the allowable functions of the Federal Government, and find any justification for philanthropy. I really believe in philanthropy, but they did not believe it was the proper function of the Federal Government. We will see no hint there that we should be involved in health care other than the health care of our military people. We are responsible for them. We will find absolutely no hint that we should be involved in education. As a matter of fact, for the 24 straight years when the SAT scores were falling lower and lower and lower in our schools, the Federal Department of Education was getting better, bigger and bigger and bigger, and exerting more control over education. We contribute about 6 percent, 5.9 I think is the actual number, percent of the funds for education. We would like to have 100 percent of control. We just need to get back to constitutional government. Our Founding Fathers believed that States do some things better, many things better, than the Federal Government. They believed that the private sector did most things better than government. And what we are now trying to do is to have government do more and more of what our Founding Fathers thought that the private sector ought to be doing.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers not only did not permit personal income tax in the Constitution, they prohibited it with the original Constitution. So to get a personal income tax, we had to amend the Constitution. The numbers that the gentleman mentioned are very interesting. The lower 50 percent of taxpayers pay 4 percent of our taxes. The upper 50 percent of taxpayers pay, I think, 96 percent of our taxes. And the top 1 percent of taxpayers, I think, pay 34 percent of our taxes. So if we are going to give a tax cut to people who pay taxes, people who pay taxes are going to get a tax cut. And since 34 percent of the taxes are paid by the top 1 percent of wage earners, and the top 50 percent of wage earners pay 96 percent of the taxes, clearly those who earn money are going to get a tax cut because they are the ones who pay taxes.