Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this morning we began our session here with a prayer. That was prayer to a God. We did the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, and in that Pledge of Allegiance we recognized that this was a Nation under God. And inscribed in marble above your chair, Mr. Speaker, are the words ``In God We Trust.'' Now, while we opened our session with prayer today and recognized God in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and recognized there is a God in that inscription in marble above your chair, at the same time we have removed the Ten Commandments that that God wrote from a courthouse in Alabama. Mr. Speaker, we appear to be a Nation conflicted. We pray in this House. Just at the other end of this Capitol, every day the Senate is opened with prayer. I understand the Supreme Court prays to open their session, and in many public events we have a prayer. In most athletic events there is a prayer before the event. Our military has chaplains of just about every religion. But in our society the only place where prayer is conspicuously absent is our schools, another reflection, Mr. Speaker, of the confliction of our society. To understand how we got here and how we can open our session with prayer and recognize in our Pledge of Allegiance that this Nation is under God and have that inscription above your chair ``In God We Trust,'' and still to remove the Ten Commandments under court order from a courthouse in Alabama, I think we need to go back and review who we are and how we got here. Mr. Speaker, freedom is not free. Five of the 55 signers of our 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. Today, much of what our Founding Fathers fought and died for is at risk of being lost. The major reason for that is that there are three big lies that are about in the land today, and for the next few minutes I want to look back at our history to refute these three lies that I think are the basis for the conflicts in our society which allows us to pray to a God here, recognize him in our Pledge of Allegiance, and is inscribed above your desk, and still to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse. These three big lies are that our Founding Fathers were largely atheists and deists, that they wanted to establish a nonChristian Nation, and in that first amendment they sought to erect a big wall of separation between church and State. This history, of course, begins in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. In that Declaration of Independence was a radical departure from the norms of the time. We read those words, or recite those words if we have memorized them, and they do not have the same meaning to us as they had to them because we did not come out of the milieu from which they came. Today, of course, our citizens are children of immigrants from every part of the world, but our Founding Fathers came largely from the British Isles and the European Continent. Thinking back to the history at that time, essentially all of those countries were ruled by a king or emperor who incredibly, from our perspective, claimed and was granted divine rights. What that meant was that the rights came from God to the king, and the king or emperor would then give what rights he wished to his people. Now, in our Declaration of Independence we broke with that, because we said all men are created equal. Notice the reference to a God, a Creator, in that Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal. That was a startling statement to make because in the countries from which they came, all people were not created equal. They made a break from that and said that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, 11 years later, and it took 11 years for the promise of the Declaration of Independence to meet the fulfillment of the Constitution, the Constitution was written. In that Constitution they sought to put down in very plain words the fundamental principles that they espoused in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, that the fundamental rights belong to the people, and they belong to the people because they were given to the people by God. Our Constitution does not give us any rights. Those rights were given to us by our God. The best that our Constitution can do is to say we are not going to permit another person to take those rights away from us. But the ink was hardly dry on the Constitution before they wondered if people would really understand that they meant that the fundamental rights, most of the rights belonged to the people, and so they wrote 12 amendments that started through the process of two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate, and then three-fourths of the State legislatures. Ten of them made it through that process, and we call those the Bill of Rights. If Members look through the first through the tenth, in many of them, the rights of the people are specifically mentioned; but where the rights of the people are not mentioned in those words, it is clearly the rights of the people that are being protected by these amendments. Now how did we go from a government, a Constitution that was created by God-fearing people who recognized God in their Declaration of Independence and who sought in their Constitution and those first 10 amendments, to make sure that those God-given rights were never taken from us, how did we come to a society so conflicted as we are today? I think it is because of the three great lies that are about in our country today: that our Founding Fathers were atheists and deists, that they sought to establish a nonChristian Nation, and they wanted to erect a big wall of separation between church and State. What I want to do now for the next few minutes is to go back into our history and let our Founding Fathers speak for themselves. Let us see what the courts said. We will take a brief look at some things which the Congress did and said, and then we will look at our schools and what they were at the beginning of our country. We can look all we want in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for those words, a wall of separation between church and State or separation between church and State. Those words do not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in our Constitution. And so we looked in constitutions to see where we could find those words, and we do find them. We find them in the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, article 124. It says there, ``In order to ensure citizens' freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state and the schools from the church.'' Those words may appear in their constitution, but they do not appear in our Constitution anywhere, so how did we get here? To refute these lies then that our Founding Fathers were atheists and deists, and they sought to establish a nonChristian Nation, let us let the Founding Fathers speak for themselves. Patrick Henry is called the firebrand of the American Revolution. His words ``Give me liberty or give me death'' every school child knows, but I would submit that the textbook from which those words appear for your child in his school have been bled dry of any reference to the Christian church origin of these words. These were spoken in St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia, on March 23, 1775. This is what Patrick Henry 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.'' 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 religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.'' Benjamin Franklin was said to be a deist. Now a deist is said to be a person who believes that there is a God but does not bother praying to him, and this God is very powerful, he created the universe and he created this world, and he also set in place certain physical laws, and your destiny will be determined by how you relate to those laws, so do not bother praying to God. That is what a deist is. Let me read something about Benjamin Franklin and you tell me, Mr. Speaker, if you think he was a deist. The year is 1787. We are in Philadelphia and the Constitutional Convention is deadlocked. There may not be a Constitution. One of the issues was how to prevent big States from abusing the small States, and Benjamin Franklin, 82 years of age, the Governor of Pennsylvania, perhaps the oldest and most revered person in that Constitutional Convention, rose to speak. And this is what that deist said, and I cannot image how Members could conclude he is deist from these words. ``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 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. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it 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 build 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.'' That precedent, Mr. Speaker, we honor today because we began today our session with prayer. Every day we do that. Thomas Jefferson was also said to be a deist. This is what he said: ``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 minds free. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever.'' George Washington, our first President: ``It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all of 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 notion or 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 would he have thought of removing the Ten Commandments from that courthouse in Alabama? In Washington's prayer book, he wrote: ``O eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate 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.'' John Adams, our second President, was also President of the American Bible Society and this is what he said: ``We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion.'' And now listen to these words: ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' What would he say about removing the Ten Commandments from that courthouse in Alabama? John Jay, our first Supreme Court Justice: ``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.'' That is our first Supreme Court Justice. What would he say about the refusal of our Supreme Court today to hear this case? John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, also President of the American Bible Society and, by the way, he told his friends that he valued his presidency of the American Bible Society above his presidency of the United States. These are his words: ``The highest glory of the American revolution was this. It connected in one indissolvable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. From the day of the declaration, they, that is, the founders were bound by the laws of God which they all acknowledged as their rules of conduct.'' And then somewhat later on, Calvin Coolidge, Silent Cal, a President of very few words. He was known for this. I understand that at one banquet a lady sat next to him, and she told the President that she had made a wager with one of her friends that she could get the President to say at least three words that evening. He responded to her and his response was the only words that he uttered that evening and those words were, ``You lose.'' Calvin Coolidge said, ``America seeks no empires built on blood and forces. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.'' He later 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.'' We could quote from a great many more of our Founding Fathers. Essentially all of them made comments like this. But let us turn now to our courts, to the Supreme Court. In 1811, there was a case the People v. Ruggles. This was a person who had publicly slandered the Bible. This case got to the Supreme Court and this is what they said: ``You have attacked the Bible. In attacking the Bible, you have attacked Jesus Christ. 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.'' What would that court say about the removal of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse in Alabama? In 1845, there was a case Vida v. Gerrand. This was a lady teacher who was teaching morality without using the Bible. I have no idea how that case got to the Supreme Court, but it did, and this is what they said: ``Why not use the Bible?'' This is the Supreme Court. ``Why not use the Bible, especially the New Testament? It should be read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools. Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly and so perfectly as from the New Testament?'' And then in 1892, the Church of the Holy Spirit had made the contention that Christianity was not the faith of the people and that came to the Supreme Court and this is what they said: ``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.'' This is the Supreme Court. ``No purpose of action against our religion can be imputed to any legislature, 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.'' The justices went on citing 87 different legal precedents to affirm that America was formed as a Christian Nation by believing Christians. What happened? In 1947, a Supreme Court enlarged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt from seven to nine did a 180-degree about-face, and they repudiated 160 years of precedents in a ruling which talked about this wall of separation between church and State. They misunderstood as many today what our Founding Fathers hoped to accomplish by that first amendment. We might spend a moment looking at why that was the first amendment. Our Founding Fathers did not come here to get rich. As a matter of fact, many of them left riches to come here to get freedom. Freedom from what? There were two tyrannies that they came here to escape, some one, some the other, and some both. One was the tyranny of the church. In England, the Episcopal Church was empowered by the state so it could oppress other religions. On the European continent, it was the Roman Church that was empowered by the state so that it had the power to oppress other religions. And then, of course, there was the tyranny of the crown, this divine right of kings and emperors. I think it is no accident that in 1791 when our Founding Fathers wanted to make crystal clear what they meant in the Constitution, they wanted to say explicitly in those first 10 amendments what was implicit in the Constitution, that the first two addressed these two tyrannies from which they sought to protect themselves. It is very interesting that the establishment clause of the first amendment, that Congress should enact no law relative to the establishment of a religion, that a major architect of that was a Roman Catholic, Charles Carroll, for whom Carroll Creek in Frederick County is named, for whom Carroll County in northern Maryland is named. You see, in old Virginia, Roman Catholics could not vote and in colonial Maryland, not only could Roman Catholics not vote but Jews could not vote. To their great credit, our Founding Fathers recognized when it came time to write the Constitution, and those first 10 amendments, that that is not what they came here to do, to discriminate, to deny, and so they chose a person who had been discriminated against, a Roman Catholic, to be a major architect of that first amendment. Clearly what they wanted to do, and they say it over and over, and the courts have said it, that what they wanted to do was to prevent the State from empowering any one religion so that it could oppress others. They had no fear of religion itself. They had no concern about people of religion being in government. They had no concern about God being in government. They mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence. We have ``In God We Trust'' on our coins today and every bill that you carry in your purse. We began this day with prayer. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, we recognize there is a God. ``In God We Trust'' is in marble over the chair of the Speaker. Clearly these are the roots of our country. How could we have wandered so far away? Ever since 1947, no Supreme Court has ever gone back for any verdict dealing with this subject that repudiated 160 years of precedents before that. Let us move now to the Congress and look at a couple of things that the Congress did and said. The first of these is in 1854. Humanism and Darwinism were sweeping the country and there was an assertion that America was not a Christian Nation. The Congress studied this for a year and after a year, on March 27 of 1854, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its final report. These words are from that report: ``The first amendment clause speaks against an establishment of religion. 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 Nation.'' This is the Congress. I love these next words. With the time we spend in front of the television set, we no longer have a vocabulary or the ability to produce these kinds of phrases: ``They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the Nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Had the people during the revolution,'' and this is the Congress, the Senate, ``had the people during the revolution had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.'' At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, just not any one sect or denomination. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Islam or infidelity but to prevent rivalry among the Christian denominations to the exclusion of others. ``Christianity must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, without the firm belief that there is power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.'' Consistent with this philosophy, the Continental Congress bought 20,000 Bibles to distribute to their new citizens, and for 100 years, at the beginning of our country, this Congress appropriated money to send missionaries to the American Indians. Let me read further from this report from the Congress: ``In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity. By its great 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 descendants.'' Let us turn now to our schools. And the Congress in 1854 made this statement about our schools. It said: ``The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in our schools.'' Consistent with that, it was used. The New England Primer was used for over 200 years. Notice how they taught the alphabet. ``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 ``McGuffey Reader,'' used for 100 years. Not too many years ago it was brought back to some of our schools when for a number of years the achievement scores had considerably dropped and we graduated over 1 million people who literally could not read their high school diplomas, and, out of desperation, they brought the ``McGuffey Reader'' back to some of the schools, because when we had that in our schools, the graduates could read when they graduated from school. The ``McGuffey Reader.'' This is what it says: ``The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it our derived our notions on the character of God and on the great moral Governor of the universe.'' This is the author of the ``McGuffey Reader": ``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 of these extractions from the Bible I make no apology.'' That is the author of the ``McGuffey Reader.'' Of the first 108 schools in our country, 106 were distinctly religious. The first of these was Harvard University, named after a beloved New England pastor, John Harvard. This is what they said in their student handbook: ``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 the graduates of Harvard University were pastors. We now expose these three great lies: the wall of separation, those words appear only in the Constitution of the Soviet Republic. They are not in our Constitution, they were not intended by our Founding Fathers. Their only intent was to make sure that the state never empowered any one religion so that it could oppress others. Clearly in letting the Founding Fathers and the courts and the Congress and the schools speak, it is very clear that our Founding Fathers were not atheists and deists, that they did intend to establish a religious Nation. We have changed. 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 diplomas. We spent more money than any other nation in the industrialized world to educate our children, yet SAT scores fell for 24 straight years before finally leveling off at the bottom in the 1990s, and there they remain, if you watch your papers. There they remain at the bottom. In a 1960 survey, 53 percent of America's teenagers had never kissed and 57 percent had never necked, that is to hug and kiss, and 92 percent of teenagers in America said they were virgins in 1960. Just a little personal anecdote. I got my doctorate at the University of Maryland in 1952, just in this time period, in a little building at the highest point on the campus there, Memorial Hall, a brick building that still stands. Just over the hill from there were girls' dormitories, and the dean of women would not let the girls go barefoot because she said it was too sexy. How have we changed? Today, instead of that, we have coed dorms, and I am afraid far too many coed rooms at the University of Maryland. By 1990, just 30 years after 1960, 75 percent of American high school students are sexually active by 18. In the next 5 years, we spent $4 billion to educate them how to be immoral through trumpeting the solution of safe sex, and it worked. One in five teenagers in America today loses 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, 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 in any given weekend in America. Thirty percent of the students population spends some time under the influence of alcohol. A couple of years ago a young woman in a high school in Oklahoma wrote this poem as a new school prayer: 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. 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 prayers spoken out loud are serious vice. For praying in a public hall Might offend someone who has 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 have 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 is inappropriate to teach right from wrong, We are 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, number one in divorce, number one in teenage pregnancies, number one in abortion, number one in illegal drug abuse, and we are number one in the industrialized world for illiteracy. Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured this country for 5 years, asked what was there about America that made it so special. He summed up his lengthy visit in 1831: ``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 minds 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.'' Would Alexis de Tocqueville understand why we took the Ten Commandments out of that courthouse in Alabama? In 1863, Abraham Lincoln declared a National Day of Humiliation, and these are his words: ``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.'' And, Mr. Lincoln, the growth from then on has been uninterrupted and today we are something that you could not even have imagined then. ``But we have forgotten God,'' he says. ``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.'' Could you have a clearer description of where largely we are today in our attitudes? ``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.'' 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.'' Most of this present generation have not forgotten from whence we came. They never knew. Our textbooks have been bled dry of any reference to the Christian heritage of our country. Abraham Lincoln understood that this Nation was a new experiment, that it might not be successful, because four score and seven years later, and if you do the arithmetic that takes you back to the Declaration of Independence, four score and seven years ago our fathers founded on this continent a new Nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. We are now engaged in a great war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. Then he went on to say they were met on a great battlefield of that nation and we come here to dedicate that to those who fought and died here. Then he ends that Gettysburg Address with almost a prayer: ``This government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.'' Let me end with where I started. We opened our day's business today in this House with prayer; we did the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, in which we recognized that we are in a Nation under God; and over the Speaker's Chair inscribed in marble in large letters are the words ``In God We Trust.'' And yet at the same time we now have required the removal of His commandments from that courthouse in Alabama. I submit that if our textbooks had not been bled dry of the Christian heritage of our country, if in fact our leaders today would go back and read the Federalist Papers to understand the milieu in which our Constitution was written, that they would understand very clearly that our Founding Fathers never could have imagined that we would have interpreted that Establishment Clause as requiring freedom from religion, and that is what they are trying to do. They clearly meant it to assure freedom of religion. Those are two very different concepts, Mr. Speaker, and my prayer is, my hope is, that our leaders today will go back for a refresher course in our history, look again at our Founding Fathers and who they were and what they stood for and what they fought and what they died for and what they said and what they did in their Congress and what they did in their Supreme Court and what we taught in our schools. If we did that, Mr. Speaker, those Ten Commandments would be hauled back as quickly as one could to that courthouse in Alabama, because their presence there clearly is not at any variance with any of the principles of our Founding Fathers. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they would be appalled that we had so misinterpreted their assurance that never should the State empower any religion so that can could oppress others. They would ask us, How could you have misunderstood? Didn't we make it clear to you that we were talking about an establishment of religion? Wasn't it clear from all of our personal statements, from all of what we did in our courts, from what we said in our Congress, that we believed that God was essential in our Nation? Certainly children should pray in schools. Certainly the Ten Commandments should be in public places. We are a Christian Nation, established by Christian people, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that our leadership in our courts and in our Congress and in all of our States go back and review our history so they can understand from whence we came, because if we do not, Mr. Speaker, go back and understand from whence we came, I am concerned about where we are going.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 15, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall number 364, the Paul amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight regarding H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. Some groups have made claims that this bill would change the laws currently in effect regarding RU-486 or other abortion drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill will not, Mr. Speaker, change, supersede or overrule any law regarding abortion drugs. All the current laws and regulations for abortion drugs as well as all other drugs will remain in force and the punishments for breaking those laws and regulations will still apply. The truth is that all this bill does is to free Americans to participate in the world market for the purchase of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. In doing so, it will not change what is otherwise legal or illegal in this country. Some of the staunchest pro-life Members of this body support H.R. 2427 because they understand that it does not threaten or undermine the abortion drug laws currently in force. I hope that Americans will ignore the unfounded criticisms of this bill. This bill will provide Americans, particularly seniors, large savings when purchasing prescription drugs.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, whether you think the U.N. is an efficacious organization or you think it is a useless organization, whether you think that we are advantaged as a country of being a member of the U.N. or you think we ought not be a member of the U.N., you can vote for the Paul amendment with confidence that you are doing the right thing. Let me explain. Both the Department of Defense and the Congressional Research Service have documented that we have spent over $19 billion of taxpayers' money on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. Now, the U.N. has legitimized our claim that this ought to be credited against our dues because they have credited $1.8 billion of this against our dues. I am going to vote for this amendment. I will vote for any amendment that denies funding to the U.N. without any argument whether we ought to belong, any argument of whether it is good or bad, but the simple argument that, in all fairness, please do an accounting of the monies we have spent on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. Please credit appropriate amounts of that to our U.N. dues. Then, if there are dues left over, we will pay those dues. But until that accounting is done, everybody in this Congress, we are in very tough financial times now, ought to vote yes for the Paul amendment that will demand that the accounting is done; and then we can debate another day whether or not we ought to be members of the U.N. or whether or not it is an efficacious organization. But, for today, the simple fact that we have not been credited for almost $17 billion of monies that we have spent on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities is more than a legitimate right to vote for this amendment. Vote for the Paul amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer but in spite of that I think I understand the intent of this amendment. As I understand it, we have a law that has been in effect now for 7 years which is really being violated by a number of cities. The Mayor of San Francisco, for example, told her police not to give information to INS. This is a clear violation of the law. No evil thing is going to happen to any city or any jurisdiction if they just follow the law. When you do not follow the law, you end up in jail if you are an ordinary citizen. These cities and jurisdictions that are violating this law need to understand that the law needs to be kept. All this amendment says is if they do not follow the law which has now been in effect for 7 years, they are not going to get any money, and I think that is a very reasonable thing. I do not think there will be any violations of the law because they clearly want the money. And I just do not think there is anything sinister in this. We have a law that is grossly violated. There are no penalties in the law. All this does is put in reasonable penalties. The only penalties you can put in this bill is simply denying them funding under this bill. Nobody will get hurt. All they have to do is follow the law and they will get all the money they should get. Mr. Chairman, I think this is very simple. It should not be necessary to discuss this any longer. It could not be simpler. They are breaking the law. This puts some teeth in the law. If they continue to break the law, they will not get money. If they do not get money, they will not continue to break the law.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker: The men and women who serve in America's Armed Services performed exceptionally well during Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the three weeks of initial heavy combat, members of the Army's 507th Maintenance Unit were ambushed along the lengthy supply lines within Iraq. The death, brief imprisonment, and serious injuries to three women in that unit briefly captured the attention of the world. Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a single mother of two toddlers, a 3-year old and a 4-year old, was killed in the attack. Pfc. Piestewa had joined the military 2 years earlier after being divorced. Spec. Shoshana Johnson, a single mother of a 2-year old, had joined the Army to gain experience as a cook. She was held briefly as a POW. In gross violation of the Geneva Convention, the Iraqis videotaped and distributed footage of the clearly terrified Spec. Johnson and her fellow American captives being interrogated. Pfc. Jessica Lynch joined the military to earn educational benefits to fulfill her dream of becoming a teacher. She is now recovering from serious injuries following her rescue from an Iraqi hospital by American Special Forces. Spec. Johnson's family was shocked to find out that her Army career as a cook for a Maintenance Unit placed her in harm's way within enemy territory during the invasion of Iraq. It was news to millions of Americans that military personnel policies deliberately assign women to serve in units that are routinely deployed in harm's way. As a scientist, I believe that government policies should be based upon facts. The facts are that men and women are different. As the only Member of Congress with a Ph.D. in Human Physiology, I can assert this as a matter of scientific fact. However, you don't need to be a scientist to know this is true. It is basic common sense. The military is a profession where the stakes involved are a matter of life and death. On a battlefield, the differences between men and women have potentially life and death consequences. I would like to submit for the record and edification of my colleagues and the nation a number of documents examining the evidence of the impact of the differences between men and women on the battlefield. Most of the documents have been organized by Ms. Elaine Donnelly, the President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. Ms. Donnelly is also a former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, and of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS, 1984-86). For additional information, you may log onto the CMR website: www.cmrlink.org. Included among these documents are: ``Army Gender-Integrated Basic Training (GIBT)--Summary of Relevant Findings and Recommendations: 1993-2002.'' Additional articles from major news organizations include: ``No More GI Orphans,'' Editorial, The Boston Globe, April 9, 2003; ``Mothers at War,'' Editorial, The Washington Post, March 25, 2003; ``Mothers At Sea,'' Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, December 3, 1999. I am also including an article by Anita Ramasastry, ``What Happens When GI Jane is Captured: Women Prisoners of War and the Geneva Conventions,'' April 2, 2003. Ms. Ramasastry is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and the Associate Director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce & Technology. I hope these documents will encourage our nation and policy makers to address this important issue. All of these documents ask tough questions about the impact, costs and consequences of current military personnel policies concerning the assignments of men and women. A number of significant changes in military personnel policies affecting men and women were adopted during the previous administration. These policy changes did not receive public attention or scrutiny until Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is not an exaggeration to say that among policy makers, at least for the public record, there has been a reluctance to ask, let alone endeavor to discover the answers to these tough questions. This is a mistake. The fear that the facts that we might discover about the real world impact of changes in military personnel policies might prove inconvenient or politically incorrect is no justification for ignoring the necessity to do so. From my previous work as a scientist and engineer and now as a Member of Congress, I believe public policies should be grounded in facts, not wishful thinking. This is especially true with respect to military personnel polices. We, as public policy makers, owe the individual men and women who sacrifice so much to serve in our military personnel policies that will enhance their capability to achieve the military's mission and to protect their lives. We can never forget that military service is a profession where the stakes can not be higher or have graver consequences. I hope the material I have submitted for publication in the Congressional Record encourages a vigorous inquiry and debate about military personnel policies by both the public and government officials. Army Gender-Integrated Basic Training (GIBT)--Summary of Relevant Findings and Recommendations: 1993-2002 In a slide presentation prepared for presentation to the Secretary of the Army on March 22, 2002, the Army Training and Doctrine Command claimed that GIBT is ``effective'' in terms of social benefits. TRADOC also conceded that gender- integrated basic training (GIBT) is an ``inefficient'' format for basic instruction of recruits. Inefficiencies associated with GIBT, some of which were admitted but downplayed by TRADOC in March 2002, include the following: Less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs. Voluntary and involuntary misconduct, due to an emotionally volatile environment for which leaders and recruits are unprepared. Higher physical injury and sick call rates that detract from primary training objectives. Diversion from essential training time due to interpersonal distractions and the need for an extra week of costly ``sensitivity training.'' A perceived decline in the overall quality and discipline of GIBT; lack of confidence in the abilities of fellow soldiers; and the need to provide remedial instruction to compensate for military skills not learned in basic training. Re-defined or lowered standards, gender-normed scores, and elimination of physically demanding exercises so that women will succeed. Additional stress on instructors who must deal with different physical abilities and psychological needs of male and female recruits. Contrivances to reduce the risk of scandal, such as changing rooms, extra security equipment and personnel hours to monitor barracks activities, and ``no talk, no touch'' rules, which interfere with informal contacts between recruits and instructors. No evidence of objectively measured positive benefits from GIBT, and no evidence that restoration of separate gender training would have negative consequences for women or men. An admittedly ``inefficient'' method of basic training that produces little or no tangible benefits cannot be described as ``effective'' in military terms. This is especially so when findings of two major blue ribbon commissions on co-ed basic training have indicated otherwise. GIBT was implemented administratively in 1994. It is possible to restore superior gender-separate basic training, which is both efficient and effective in military terms, in the same way. For the sake of military efficiency and the best interests of Army men and women, this should be done without further delay. 1. The need for women in the military is unquestioned and not relevant to the issue of Gender-Integrated Training. The real question is whether it makes sense to retain an expensive, inefficient form of Army training that offers minimal benefits in terms of military necessity. The Final Report of the 1999 Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues noted that ``Whether [gender-integrated basic training] improves the readiness of the performance of the operational force is subjective.'' A close look at data and testimony gathered by this and other recent studies indicate that there are no significant benefits from gender integrated basic training, but many problems and complications that detract from the primary purpose of GIBT. 2. The only argument offered by TRADOC in 2002 in favor of retaining GIBT is that male and female recruits prefer training together for social reasons. Young people entering the services today are more ``gender- aware'' than generations past, and making recruits happy is not the purpose of basic training. Three years after the return of GIBT, sensational sex scandals involving everything from sexual abuse to consensual but exploitive relationships between cadre and junior trainees made headlines nationwide. The 1997 Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues, headed by former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, found that ``. . . the present organizational structure in integrated basic training is resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs.'' The Kassebaum Baker Commission, whose members were largely independent and free of conflicts of interest, voted unanimously that gender-integrated basic training should be discontinued. 3. The 1999 Congressional Commission reported abundant evidence of inappropriate relationships and distractions in

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, we have heard it said it so many times that it risks becoming a cliche: Our Nation is engaged in a war against terrorism. If I may be permitted one more cliche: Money is the lifeblood of any terrorist organization. The ability of the September 11th terrorists to move money through American banks without sending up any cautionary red flags was critical to their success and our national tragedy. People attempting to open accounts in this country without Social Security numbers ought to be seen as a giant, flashing red neon flag. That is why we must refuse to allow banks to accept as legitimate identification any foreign government-issued identification document in lieu of a Social Security number. The Department of Treasury and the banks see things differently. The Treasury Department has issued a final rule to allow banks to accept the Mexican matricula I.D. card. But at the request of the banks, Treasury went even further. Their rule does not even require banks to maintain copies of the matricula cards. Ignorance in this case might be good business practice, but it is dangerous and foolhardy security policy. Our responsibility as Members of Congress is to make sure that terrorists cannot use American banks to finance attacks on our people.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in a former life I worked for the military for 18 years in a number of capacities. During that time, I gained an enormous respect for our military personnel. For the last 11 years since coming to the Congress, I have had the privilege and the honor of serving on the Committee on Armed Services where I gained even more respect for our military personnel. I would have thought that this long association with the military would have prepared me for an event of a couple of years ago, but it really did not. This event was a paralyzed veterans reception in Cannon Caucus, and I knew what I was going to see when I went there, but I really was not prepared for the emotional response that I had. I went to that big conference room, and there were many, many service personnel on crutches and in wheelchairs. It finally struck me that they were paralyzed, and they were there so that I could continue to live in this great free country, I and 280 million other Americans; and then I thought of those that were not so lucky, that were filling graves in foreign countries or in this country who, in Abraham Lincoln's words, gave that last full measure of devotion for their country. Less than one person in a hundred serves in our military, but to this very small percent of our population this grateful Nation owes an enormous debt. I thank my colleagues for bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a valued member of our Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces, I believe it appropriate to first highlight the magnificent service rendered the Nation by the men and women serving in our Armed Forces all 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 our Nation. They continue to meet every challenge with true dedication and commitment. We thank all of them for their service, and we thank all Americans for their steadfast support of our servicemen and women. History has taught us that we achieve peace through strength. It is not easy to quickly grasp and apply the lessons from the ongoing war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 takes important steps to make our country more secure. It does so by strengthening our military's ability to project the force our Nation requires at almost a moment's notice anywhere in the world by sea and by air. I am pleased to report that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 increases the requested authorization for Department of Defense programs within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces by $1.8 billion to nearly $30 billion. Nearly $400 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 in conducting operations of the type we have just concluded in Iraq. These programs include one additional C-17 aircraft for $182 million; an additional $20 million to sustain a force structure of 83 B-1's, 23 aircraft above the level planned; an airborne tanker initiative of $229 million that would give the Air Force the flexibility of retaining KC-135E aircraft, meeting unfunded requirements for depot maintenance for tanker aircraft, and/or preparing to, procure or lease KC-767 airborne tanker aircraft; an additional $376 million for Tomahawk missiles to increase our production capacity and procure missiles to meet the long-term inventory goal of the Navy; an additional $178 million for the Affordable Weapon, a relatively low-cost cruise missile; and an additional $100 million bomber R&D initiative for the next generation, follow-on stealth, deep strike bomber. In addition, the recommended mark includes several important legislative proposals: first, a multiyear procurement authorization for Tomahawk missiles and Virginia class submarines; second, a limitation on C-5A aircraft retirement until a reliability and reengineering program completes testing and the results of which are reported to Congress; third, an electromagnetic gun initiative; fourth, a requirement that the Center for Naval Analysis initiate several independently conducted studies on potential future fleet architectures for the Navy; and, fifth, a transfer of authorization to advance procurement for LPD-17 should Congress enact appropriations for Tomahawk missiles for fiscal year 2003. In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the members of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces and in particular the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), my very good friend. Every member of the subcommittee was diligent in their commitment and support to achieve the mission of strengthening our military. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for his leadership and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member. I thank them both. I would particularly like to thank the staff and particularly the staff director, Doug Roach. When one is a Member, one appreciates the staff. When one is a chairman, one really appreciates the staff. I thank them very much. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 is the product of a strong and cooperative bipartisan effort. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), an expert on civil service regulations, from Dayton, Ohio, the home of a great military base, Wright-Patterson, where there are a lot of civil servants.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner). Mr. Chairman, the thinnest sheet of paper has two sides, and I yield to the gentleman for a look at the other side of this sheet of paper.

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), my colleague and very good friend, who is not on our committee but has a very important contribution to make to this debate.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to manage the time of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Liberty High School in Eldersburg, Maryland and its Instrumental Music Director Joseph Fischer has been recognized as one of only 50 Grammy Signature Schools nationwide in 2003 for its outstanding music education. Along with the recognition, the Grammy Foundation awarded Liberty High School with $1,000 toward its music education program. The Grammy Foundation, a nonprofit arm of the Recording Academy, coordinates the Grammy Signature Schools recognition program for outstanding music education by public schools. Most of us are probably familiar with the Grammys awarded by the Recording Academy to outstanding recording artists. The Grammy Foundation is dedicated to engaging students of all ages through music and arts-based education programs. For more information about the Foundation and its programs, you can visit its website www.grammy.com. A list of all the winners is at www.grammy.com/foundation/signature__schools.html. Liberty High School was one of 20,000 public high schools invited to submit detailed applications for the Grammy Signature Schools award. Finalists for the Grammy Signature School award were determined on the basis of a scoring system applied and critiqued by a panel of top music educators and professionals. Finalists then had to submit additional documentation such as recordings of school concerts, sample concert programs and repertoire that were further reviewed by an independent screening committee. As my colleagues are well aware, I was a scientist before I was elected to the Congress. However, I was also a teacher. I taught on the college level for more than 20 years. I support and applaud music education because it teaches participants the important life skills of discipline and team work. Liberty High School would not even have been considered as a Grammy Signature School without the leadership provided by its Instrumental Musical Director Joseph Fischer. It is the work of an excellent individual teacher, such as Mr. Fischer, that opens the door and inspires students to achieve success not just in their particular field of study, but in all future endeavors. I know that I am just echoing the gratitude of his students, their parents, faculty and administrators at Liberty High School when I salute Joseph Fischer.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The United States has 2 percent of the known reserves of oil in the world. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. We now import 57 percent of what we use compared with 37 percent in 1973, at the Arab oil embargo. Now, I know that we do not get a lot of our electricity from oil, but energy is fungible and we really have to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, or the future holds big, big problems for us. Just looking at oil, for instance, there is about 1,000 gigabarrels of oil remaining in the world. That sounds like a lot, a trillion barrels, but we use 20 million barrels a day. The rest of the world uses 60 million barrels a day. The arithmetic is not very tough. That is about 40 years of known reserves of oil in the world. Now, we will find more oil, there is no question about that. But there is also no question that we would like to use more oil, and so would those Third World nations who would like to industrialize their countries to do for their people what industrialization has done for our people. So we are going to be very lucky in the future if the additional oil we find matches the additional oil we would like to use. So we have about 40 years of oil remaining in the world, and that is not forever. We really do need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, and this is a very good way. I have a lot of personal experience with photovoltaics. I have a vacation property that has 48 60-watt panels at 4kw inverters. It has been there for a number of years. It works flawlessly; and the more we use, the cheaper it will get. The further we go down the curve of pumping oil, the more expensive it will get. It will not be too many years before those curves cross. So this is a good start. It is something that we ought to do. The Federal Government needs to set the right example, and this is doing that. I certainly support the amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, however much we may disagree in the Congress and the country about how we got to this moment in time, here we are. Americans are engaged in battle to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction and to free the Iraqi people from his reign of terror. The world must know all Americans stand behind President George W. Bush in his role as Commander in Chief. The world must also know that all Americans stand united in support of our magnificent military personnel who are now in harm's way. Victory is certain. I believe it is important that we all pray and ask for God's guidance and assistance that victory come swiftly and with as little loss of life as possible, both American and Iraqi. I believe the surest path to peace is through strength. Americans are a peaceful people, but evil exists. This is a time when the evil of Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses must be defeated with military force. It is right and proper that we appeal to God, for we need His help to move beyond war and achieve the goal of a free and prosperous Iraq that will be a model for the Middle East and the world.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, for the next few moments I would like to continue to direct attention to the spending curve that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) was just talking about. If we look at that curve, we will see that it goes up ever and ever steeper. Now, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) talked about a pretty steady 7.5 percent increase. Now, one would think with a steady increase that we ought to have a curve that is going up at the same rate, but it does not do that. This is a phenomenon called the ``exponential curve.'' Every time we have an interest rate like this or a growth rate like that, the curve will go up ever steeper and steeper. Now, it is obvious when we look at that curve, it cannot continue because pretty soon it will go right through the ceiling. So it is obvious that sooner or later, and I hope sooner for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, that we have to bring our spending into line so that this curve does not continue to keep going up and up and up and soak up more and more of our gross domestic product. Now, I would like to for a few moments turn our attention to another curve, another set of curves, and these curves are just some detail- building on the curve that the gentleman showed us. What we have here are three curves. One of them is the gross Federal debt. Now, that is the total amount of money which the Federal Government owes, and we will note a line here in the middle, and that is where we are now. We will notice that that goes through this debt line at about $6.4 trillion. That is the amount of money we owe. Now, as a matter of fact, we owe more than that now, but that is the amount of money that we owed on the 20th of last month. This debt keeps growing and growing; and right now the Treasury Department is having to move monies around so that they can pay their obligations, because we have already exceeded our debt limit ceiling. So we need to pass a budget resolution soon, because buried in that is a mechanism which will automatically increase the debt limit ceiling to whatever monies the budget would have us spend for the next year. We will notice that all of the expenditures beyond our current date are extrapolations. They are just guesses of what we are going to be spending in the future. But everything to the left of that are the monies that we have spent, and so those are real numbers. Now, this gross Federal debt, which more often is referred to as the national debt, that debt is made up of two subparts. One of those is called the debt held by the public, and that is sometimes referred to simply as the public debt or sometimes it is the Wall Street debt. Now, that is the debt that the Federal Government owes because it has bought securities and bonds; and because it has sold these securities and bonds and so forth, it has gotten money from those. But that is not the only debt that we owe, because we owe another debt which we see started out fairly low and has now been increasing more and more; and this also, as we see, is an exponential kind of a curve, and we will understand why in a moment. This is a debt held by government accounts, it says here. A simpler way to understand that debt is that that is the trust fund surplus debt. That is the debt we owe to trust funds which have accumulated surpluses. Now, how do we have trust funds that are accumulating surpluses? That is because we are taking monies from the paychecks of people and putting it in trust for them, presumably putting it in trust for them, so that the money will be there later on when they need it and they are retired, like Social Security, like Medicare, like civil service retirement, like railroad retirement. There are about 50- some of these trust funds, and this year we will have about $191 billion surpluses in these trust funds. Now, more than three-fourths of all of that surplus is in the Social Security trust fund, and it is good there is such a big surplus there, because during the retirement of the baby boomers, we are going to run enormous deficits in Social Security if we do not do something to fix that problem. But that is a discussion for another evening.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about hidden taxes. I would like to talk about the biggest hidden tax of all that most Americans are completely oblivious to. Now, if this year is like last year, May 10 will be a very special day because that will be Tax Freedom Day. That will be the day that you have finished working so that you can pay all of our Federal, State and local taxes. Now that is quite some weeks for now so you are still working to pay Federal, State and local taxes and will until May 10 of this year, if this year is like last year. But on May 11 you are not going to be able to work for your family to buy that car or pay something on that tuition bill or to make a mortgage payments on your home. Because for the next 7 weeks, right at 7 weeks, until July 6 every American is going to have to work to pay the cruelest tax of all. It is a hidden tax which is a very regressive tax, and by the way it is a favorite tax of my liberal friends. But it is the most regressive tax we have because the poorest of the poor have to pay that tax. They get no exemption from the tax. They can get no deductions from it. And what is this tax, this big hidden tax that consumes 7 weeks of the working time of every American? It is unfunded Federal mandates. Now, that is a mouthful, but let us point out what that is. It is a law which we passed in this Congress and, boy, are we fond of doing this, a law which we pass in this Congress which causes a State government or a county government or a city government or a business or your family to spend money that we do not provide. In other words, it is a mandate; but we do not provide any money for the mandate so it is an unfunded Federal mandate. And that consumes the working time of every American for just about 7 weeks out of the year. So you spend about 52 percent of your time working to support government. If you are in the average community, go out on the street and walk around and look at every fourth person you meet. They work for government at some level. Now, I would submit that the average American thinks that is just too much government. And if we could resurrect our Founding Fathers and have them see where we are, they would be appalled at what we have done to the dream that they had for this country, where they envisioned a very limited Federal Government, where essentially all of the rights and all of the responsibilities stayed with the citizens in the private sector. We have come an awful long way from that dream, have we not?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. And that is why these are shown as debt. Because although there are surpluses in the trust funds, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) points out, there are no monies in the trust funds. Because we have a computer in Washington which, when we take some money from your paycheck, presumably put in trust for you, it only momentarily goes in trust for you, and then we almost immediately take that money out; and in its place we put a nonnegotiable bond in there. It is a nonnegotiable security; that is, we cannot negotiate it. It is only a security that can be redeemed by the Federal Government. When the time comes to redeem that, as the gentleman from Michigan points out, our children are then going to have to either increase taxes to get the money or borrow the money and pass that debt on to their children. I hope they do not do that, because I am ashamed that we are passing this debt on to our children. As we can see, in a few years, in a few years, the debt owed to these trust funds is going to exceed the debt that we owe to what we generally call the Wall Street debt or the public debt. Now, for about 4 or 5 years, Washington is telling us that we had surpluses and we were balancing the budget. But I want my colleagues to take a look at this gross Federal debt, or the national debt, and notice there never was a moment in time when that debt went down. It kind of flattened out here, we notice; and now it has really picked up the last couple of years. But there never was a time when it went down. Now, the budget that was balanced is what Washington calls the ``unified budget.'' That is all the money that comes into Washington and all of the money that Washington checks out. But about 10 percent of the money that comes into Washington is money that they have taken from our citizens, presumably to put in trust for our citizens, but instead of putting it in trust for our citizens, we print IOUs and put that in what should be the trust fund, and then we spend that money. So that now it accumulates a debt here. Now, for every dollar that we took out of the trust fund debt to pay down the public debt, and that is when they say we had a surplus and the debt was going down, that debt did go down. We can see it here.