Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, for 40 years Democrats controlled Congress. For 40 years Democrats expanded government, spent beyond our needs, and called Republicans extremists or mean-spirited any time they tried to limit spending, cut wasteful government programs, and return power back to the State and local level. They have a 40-year track record of being the party for which fiscal discipline was the last thing on their minds. So please, with all due respect, Democrat allegations that Republicans are being fiscally irresponsible for proposing tax relief in the face of increasing surpluses do not pass the credibility test. As C-Span junkies know, on virtually every amendment, on virtually every bill, Democrats attempt to increase spending and Republicans try to reduce spending. How is it that increased spending is not a threat to fiscal discipline, but tax cuts are? Just how liberal am I to conclude the Democrat party has become if tax cuts are viewed as dangerous to the economy? One has to wonder just where they learned economics. Taxpayers know which party is careful with their money and which party is not.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, what would the Republican tax relief package mean to Americans? It would mean that, for many Americans who cannot obtain health insurance through their employers, obtaining health insurance would become easier. It would mean that more seniors would be able to pass on the family farm or the family business to their children. It would mean that people who save for their future and for their children would be able to get a greater return on their savings. It would mean that ordinary Americans would see their paychecks go up a little bit, giving them more options, more choices about working, working overtime, or meeting the family budget. It would mean that paying off those credit card debts would be a little easier. It would mean that married couples would not be penalized so heavily for being married. Lower taxes means that people would have more control over their lives, over their time, and over their futures. With a $3 trillion surplus over the next several years, is that really such a terrifying concept?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the U.N. wants to tax Americans who use the Internet to pay for economic development in other countries. You heard it right. International bureaucracies at the United Nations are now proposing an e-mail tax on Americans. This news simply boggles the mind. It is just not enough for liberals in Washington to tax everything that moves, every time you turn around, for every possible reason under the sun. The U.N., one of the biggest anti-American organizations around, now wants to pile on and really stick it to America where it hurts. Our economy is booming, largely because of phenomenal growth in high technology sectors such as the Internet and computer technology. The U.N. does not think that is right, and it does not think it is fair that America is the world leader in Internet development. So they want to tax people who send e-mail. This administration, which is the U.N.'s most enthusiastic backer, has responded in embarrassed silence. But Republicans think this latest U.N. outrage is truly outrageous, and it will stop it dead in its tracks.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican Congress makes. For 40 years, Congress debated ways to expand government, promising more benefits in exchange for a bit less freedom. Few, if any, candidates ran on tax increases, but somehow taxes kept getting higher and higher. Welfare assistance was so broke that even those on welfare knew that the system was seriously wrong, counterproductive, and harmful. Yet, nothing was done. Then the American people said enough and elected Republicans to the majority in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. Now we are debating ways to cut taxes, not raise them. Perhaps the most significant achievement is the historic welfare reform bill signed into law in 1996. For millions and millions of families who have moved from welfare to work, they now have hopes for a brighter future, a seemingly impossible dream when despair filled their days and nights. The children in those families now have productive and fulfilling lives to look forward to. What a difference the Republican Congress makes.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the top 50 percent of income earners pay 96 percent of the Federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent are carrying only 4 percent of the load. My colleagues heard that right. The bottom 50 percent are paying almost no Federal income taxes at all, just 4 percent of the load. Guess who President Clinton and the Democrats want to give a tax cut to? My colleagues guessed it: the 50 percent of taxpayers who are paying almost no taxes already. ``Aha,'' my liberal colleagues will say, ``just as I have always suspected. The only people you Republicans care about are the top 50 percent.'' Now, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to listen closely. That kind of thinking perfectly misunderstands what Republicans are about. Republicans want to help the bottom 50 percent move into the top 50 percent. In fact, most people do just that over the course of their lifetimes. They start out young and have entry-level jobs and incomes, and then they move up in education, experience, and in income. Democrat rhetoric constantly, constantly seems to imply there are fixed categories, haves and have-nots. This is just not true.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, just listen to this quote taken from yesterday's Washington Post: ``It is not our responsibility to legislate anymore. It doesn't make sense for us to compromise.'' ``It doesn't make sense for us to compromise?'' These words come from a leader of the Democrat party, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). It appears that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has let the cat out of the bag. The Democrats had no intention of working with the Republican majority. They will block all legislative efforts, and then turn around and blame Republicans, attacking the do-nothing Congress. But the always fair and balanced media of course will help them in that effort. Then they will attack Republicans for Republican extremism, a charge we heard thousands and thousands of times since 1995 when Republicans took over the majority in the Congress. Once again, the media will help them fix the image in the public's mind, but the truth is now there for all to see. We thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to my colleagues a constituent and a friend, Pastor Chris Geeslin. Pastor Geeslin is a graduate of the Evangel Seminary of Harrisonburg, Virginia, with a Master's degree in theological studies, and is currently a doctoral candidate at the Wagner Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Pastor Chris resides in Frederick, Maryland, with his wife of 15 years, Maryellen and their four children. Pastor Chris started the Frederick Worship Center, an evangelical transdenominational church in Frederick 19 years ago. His church was instrumental in starting the Crisis Pregnancy Center, my favorite charity; the Downtown Community Church, a ministry to the inner-city of Frederick; and most recently has completed a merger with the Word of Life Church, now called the Harvest Christian Fellowship. Pastor Chris is also the executive director of Servant Ministries, a hub-ministry for pastors, intercessors, and ministry leaders who desire to be networked in prayer for their community, city, and national leader so that ``none should perish.'' Please join me in welcoming Pastor Chris Geeslin.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this summer will mark the silver anniversary of the Howard County Maryland Summer Theater. This outstanding all-volunteer organization, which annually donates the proceeds from its productions to worthwhile humanitarian causes, was founded 25 years ago by a dedicated group of citizens who wanted their children and others to have a theatrical outlet during the summer. These individuals, Elsie Best, Jean Grenon and Hazel Philbrick, had the vision and commitment to make a wonderful theatrical opportunity available to Howard County residents. Since its founding, the theater has presented 25 productions and has contributed more than $17,000 from its family-oriented musicals to local organizations assisting the homeless and the elderly as well as children effected by divorce, abuse and illness. In 25 years more than 15,000 people have attended the Howard County Summer Theater. Hello, Dolly will open this July 16. It is my sincerest wish that the theater will continue to enjoy impressive community-wide support this season and well into the future. I want to extend my best regards to all those affiliated with the Howard County Summer Theater, especially to the theatrical pioneers who made it possible over the past 25 years and to those who are dedicated to keeping a good thing going. Congratulations and God's blessing.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, we all know parents would do anything to protect their children from harm. Congress should honor that commitment and help parents by passing the rule for H.R. 1218, the Child Custody Protection Act. This is a good bill and a fair rule. Both should be passed. H.R. 1218 would make it a Federal offense for an individual to knowingly transport a minor girl across State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without her parents' consent, and to circumvent the 20 States which currently have parental notification consent laws. Evidence shows that a majority of school-aged girls who become pregnant were impregnated by adult males. This by itself is a form of sexual child abuse recognized by statutory rape laws. This child abuse is compounded if unrelated adults seek to avoid rape charges or accountability by manipulating these girls into having an abortion in another State without their parents' knowledge and in violation of State laws. This is not a vote about whether we agree with parental consent notification laws. This is a vote about whether we respect existing State law and want to eliminate a loophole which encourages child sexual abuse. It is a good rule. Vote yes on the rule.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it is time we keep our promises to veterans. I am proud to be a supporter of H.R. 1568, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999. This is a bill which deserves the support of every Member of the House. It was almost a year ago at a joint House subcommittee hearing on May 20, 1998, that representatives of veterans advocacy groups universally blasted the Small Business Administration, SBA, for decades of ignoring congressional mandates to give veterans and veteran-owned small businesses appropriate consideration. That was a hearing I cochaired of the Subcommittee on Government Programs and Oversight of the Committee on Small Business along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), who chairs the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We as a Nation must keep the promises we have made to those who served in our Armed Forces. If we do not keep our promises to veterans, we suffer more than shame and dishonor. How this Nation treats our veterans directly impacts the lives and the families of veterans and those currently on active duty. It also affects our ability to recruit capable men and women to serve in the future. It is ironic that SBA would have had such a shameful record when entrepreneurial assistance to veterans dates back to World War II and is one of the great success stories of the Federal Government under the GI bill. This current bill is all about keeping promises. H.R. 1568 incorporates the recommendations from that May 20 hearing. It is a good bill. It is a bill that I hope will help restore the faith of our veterans.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I was asked by someone the other day, ``What is the Republican agenda?'' Now, of course my first reaction was to think clearly this is someone who has never watched the 1-minute speeches. But instead I told them about the Republicans' BEST agenda: B is for best defense, E is for excellence in education, S is for saving Social Security, and T is for tax relief. Republicans clearly have the BEST agenda. A stronger military, improved education, a reformed Social Security system that will protect present and future seniors into the 21st century and tax relief for the middle class, investors, job creators and families. That is our agenda. B for best defense, E for excellence in education, S for saving Social Security, T for tax relief. It is a positive, winning agenda for the Republican Party and for securing our Nation's future.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, too many Americans liberals have a strange concept of fairness. When it comes to taxes, the liberals' idea of fairness strikes me and most Americans as very unfair. If one person works twice as hard as another, most people do not think it is unfair if he earns twice as much. A liberal would disagree. As a matter of fact, the liberal tends to demonize the harder working person. Most people do not think it is unfair that people who sacrifice income through long and difficult years in college and even graduate school expect to find jobs which pay higher than other jobs for their efforts. Yet, we find liberals constantly railing against people who are rewarded for their educational sacrifices as the rich, and presumably not entitled to the rewards they worked so hard to obtain. I find the tax on the rich and any class of people profoundly un- American. Republicans believe that low taxes, low taxes on all Americans, rich or poor, are more fair than high taxes. Should not freedom mean that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, the recent release of the Cox report on the Chinese espionage at our nuclear laboratories has put on the public record a number of bombshells. The crown jewel of our nuclear arsenal, design of the W-88 warhead, has been stolen by the Chinese Communists. Even more amazing is that nothing was done about it after it was discovered in 1995. Chinese Communist penetration of our nuclear secrets is almost total. The response from the White House? ``Everybody does it'' and ``Let's not overreact.'' I can hardly imagine how one could possibly say, ``Let's not overreact.'' What could possibly be worse than losing the single most valuable nuclear secret we have? And as for the everybody-does-it defense when confronted by scandal, the charge is false. It is a lie. President Ronald Reagan did not arm China with our best military technology, and President Reagan did not silence anyone inside the executive branch who dared challenge this policy. But this is exactly what has happened during this administration.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, how is it that the party of Thomas Jefferson, who was a champion of the common man, has become the enemy of middle-class families? How is it that the party of Jefferson, champion of freedom from oppressive government, now rushes to embrace expansion of government and every conceivable encroachment on human liberty? Just consider the evidence. ``New Democrat'' Bill Clinton won office in 1992 by promising a middle-class tax cut. He then promptly passed the largest tax increase in our history. And now we have the leader of the Democrat Party in Congress, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) who is on record saying just over a week ago, and I have the quote here, and since repetition is the soul of learning and I am an old school teacher, why, it bears repeating: ``You've got to have a combination of taking it out of the defense budget and raising revenue. We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or even raising taxes to do it.'' Yes, the party of Thomas Jefferson is dead, long dead, deader than Elvis. A weaker and weaker military and higher and higher taxes on average middle-class Americans, that is apparently the Democrat way.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concerns about the rhetoric that surrounds this bill. I am deeply concerned that some members have stated that this budget will ``lock away the Social Security and Medicare surplus.'' I am puzzled as to what this means. Is the money going to be stuffed under a mattress at the Department of Treasury. Will there be a huge safe with armed guards at the Bureau of Public Debt stuffed full of stacks of cash? Obviously not. When you peel back the rhetoric, you find out that what the bill really does is to use the Social Security Trust Fund Surplus to pay down publicly held debt. This does absolutely nothing to address the long-term problems of Social Security. As a matter of fact, if Congress leaves current law as it is, all of the surplus from all of the trust funds, and any unified budget surplus, will be used to pay down the publicly held debt. When was the last time you heard seniors in your district telling you that they want FICA taxes to be used to pay for Congress' voracious spending during the 1980's and 90's? While paying down the publicly held debt may be a laudable goal, let's not say it does something to ``Save Social Security.'' All paying down the publicly held debt does is allow the government to pay down publicly held debt now, so that when all of the IOU's in the Social Security Trust Fund come due in 2014 we can take out more debt. I am puzzled why it is good policy to pay down debt now so that we can take out massive amounts of debt in the future. My colleague, Mr. Markey, and I have introduced legislation which will actually do something to save Social Security. Our legislation will add six years to the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. Our bill does this by authorizing the investment of a portion of the Social Security Trust Fund in broad-based index stock funds, just like every pension manager in the country does. We have included extensive provisions to protect the fund from political manipulation. By having a private sector fund managers invest in the market, our bill will finally get a portion of the trust fund out of the hands of a spend- happy Congress in Washington, and simultaneously grow the assets in the trust fund. This is almost identical to the investment strategy that has been employed by the highly successful Thrift Savings Plan. Most importantly though, our bill will add at least six years to the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. Whie I intend to vote for this bill, let's be honest with the American people. This bill does nothing to ``Save Social Security.'' And if we tell the taxpayer otherwise we are doing them a disservice.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this supplemental, but I want to make some remarks relative to the amendment which is now before us. The truth is that because of long procurement cycles, essentially none of the money in the supplemental will ever have anything to do with support of this war. It just takes too long to build the equipment and get it there. I am very strongly in support of this supplemental bill because it does two things that I want to do. I want to put back all of the resources that have been expended in this war which I do not think should ever have occurred and I do not think it should continue. I want to put back all of those resources that we have been denied through several years of underfunding our military. I will tell my colleagues, I wish that this supplemental were a great deal larger than it was because our military needs far more money than this. I am as much in support of our troops as anybody in this Congress, but please do not confuse support of the troops with support of use of the troops. Do not impugn to us who are going to support this amendment motives that we do not have. I support the supplemental. I support the troops. I will not support this war. And I can support the troops without supporting the use of the troops. And I know that America understands. I hope that more Members of this body understand this. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, normally when I hear people talk about March madness, I assume they are talking about the NCAA college basketball tournament. However, this year I am afraid this expression is better applied to Democrat party plans to actually expand an entitlement that is already going bankrupt. This is clearly an example of political madness. The fact is, Congress worked together with the President last year to take the first step toward reforming a program that was within 4 years, just 4 years, Madam Speaker, of going bankrupt. The reforms we passed together on a bipartisan basis, although essential, merely postponed Medicare bankruptcy until the year 2010. It is around 2010 that baby boomer bankruptcy is going to hit big time. If this madness persists, we can kiss talk of budget surpluses good-bye, we can forget about proposing any new government programs, and worst of all, we can forget about giving the middle class some long overdue tax relief. It is now April. This March madness talk of expanding Medicare must end.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between the President's proposal to reform Social Security and the Congressional Republicans' proposal to reform Social Security. Under our proposal, 100 percent of the retirement surplus will be put away to strengthen Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt. The President uses part of this surplus for Social Security, part for Medicare, and part to pay for new Washington spending. But do not take my word for it. I urge Americans to verify for themselves the facts at issue and compare the two proposals. The President's plan includes so many Washington accounting tricks that even Houdini would have been impressed. But accounting tricks do not make an insolvent program solvent. The President's proposal double counts Social Security to the tune of $2.4 trillion, hardly a recipe for saving Social Security from bankruptcy. I urge my colleagues to join us on a bipartisan basis, to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 67, the amendment from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, I inadvertently voted ``aye.'' I would like the Record to reflect I intended to vote ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, let us compare and contrast the Republican budget with the President's budget. The Republican's budget saves more for Social Security and Medicare. The President's budget cuts $9 billion from Medicare. The Republican budget enforces balanced budget discipline. The President's budget busts the budget caps by $30 billion. The Republican budget provides middle class tax relief. The President's budget, surprise, surprise, raises taxes by $172 billion. One budget reflects the common sense conservatism of responsible government that gives people more freedom and a higher standard of living. The other budget reflects the instinct to expand government at every turn, all the while shortchanging our seniors. The Republican budget strengthens retirement security first. It protects seniors and sticks to the historic balanced budget agreement signed by the President only 2 short years ago. This is a budget Americans can applaud.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in the last 3 days I have attended two really historic events. For the first time in our history, Members of the Congress, and I was privileged to be one of them, went to Russia to brief members of the Duma there. We briefed them on the emerging missile threat and we took with us three of the top members of the commission. Just this morning I attended another really historic event. For only the third time in the last two decades we had a classified briefing in this chamber. Again, it was on the emerging ballistic missile threat. For too long our citizens have been unprotected, totally unprotected. Even a single intercontinental ballistic missile could not be shot down. We cannot leave our people unprotected any longer. It is incumbent on us that we proceed with all due haste to develop a ballistic missile defense system that many of our people think we now have in place, and which, as a matter of fact, the Russians do have in place such a system, fairly robust system, that will protect about 70 percent of their people. It is high time we get on with the task of protecting our people. I rise in strong support of this bill.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fowler amendment, and I would like to make a few comments before we vote. First of all, I want to emphasize what a number of others have emphasized, and that is this is clearly a constitutional issue. I have here a copy of the Constitution. I do not think that it is a very difficult decision to come to. Article I, Section 8 states the prerogatives of Congress in just 8 little words: The Congress shall have power to declare war. Very short, very simple. Article II, Section 2, uses 34 words to define the prerogatives of the President: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. It is the Congress that declares war. It is the Congress that commits the troops. It is the President who is the Commander in Chief after the Congress has committed the troops. The fact that prior Presidents have also violated the Constitution does not mean that we should continue to permit our Presidents to do that. It is a little bit like being hauled into traffic court and protesting to the judge, ``Gee, judge, I speed every day on that strip of road. How can you fine me today because I was speeding all those other times and I was never apprehended?'' Past violations do not justify a present violation. The country to which the President proposes to send our troops is a sovereign state. This is not an emergency. There is no one in the Congress that I know of who wants to limit the power of the President to commit our troops in a true emergency. This is not an emergency. There is plenty of time to debate it, and I am very pleased that we are having this debate. What is going on in that country is a civil war. No one will argue but what atrocities are being committed. That being true, the correct course of action is to bring the offenders to the bar of justice. There is a war crimes tribunal; that is where they should be brought. Sending our troops there will not solve that problem. I know of no exit strategy. The problems in Kosovo are very deep, they have been there a very long time, and if we stay there 2 years, or 3 years, or 5 years, when we leave the situation will be exactly as it was when we came. Hostilities will continue. We will not have solved those problems. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that we are here debating this this evening. We need to debate this. We need to do more than just debate this. We, as a Congress, need to assert our constitutional prerogatives. We really need legislation that says that no President, this President or any other President, can commit our troops to battle, can put our young men and women in harm's way, without a vote of the Congress. We must be careful in the wording of the legislation that does this because we do not want to limit his ability, do not want to limit his ability to commit our troops in a true emergency. There is clearly not time to convene the Congress and declare war if intercontinental ballistic missiles are headed our way, and our President must have the ability to commit our military resources in a true emergency. Neither this, nor any of the very large number of deployments that this administration is engaged in have been an emergency, not a single one of them has been an emergency, and there have been more deployments during this administration than during the previous 40 years. This is the first time since I have been here that we have had a debate before the action occurred except before going into Bosnia we did have some sense of the Congress resolutions that were totally ignored by the President. I hope this one passes with this amendment, and I hope that it is not ignored by the President.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Markey and I introduced the ``Social Security Investment Fund Act of 1999'' with Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Matsui. This bill gives legislative form to the need to provide workers with a reasonable return on their Social Security payroll taxes while maintaining the guaranteed benefit foundation of the current Social Security system. It would authorize the investment of a portion of the Social Security surplus in the private sector--a diversification strategy used by nearly every other public pension fund in America. It would restrict this discretion, however, to a very conservative form of investment called ``index funds.'' Management would be passive, not active, and the return on investment would mirror the return of the market as a whole, not individual stocks. In this way, the system would benefit from a higher rate-of-return while protecting the system against the shock of market downturns. The main features include: An addition of 6 years of solvency to the Social Security System without resort to benefit cuts, payroll tax increases or government borrowing. The locking-up of Social Security surpluses for Social Security only. Assumption by the government of the risks of ups and downs in the market so that retirement benefits remain guaranteed. The structure of the investment program is as follows: 1. Independence. We establish the Investment Board as an independent agency. Its activity is self-funded, and its authorization explicitly forbids muddying the pursuit of its fiduciary duty with social, political or religious objectives. 2. Limited Risk. The amount to be invested in stocks would remain far less than the amounts already invested in the market by public pension funds--a small fraction of the market as a whole. 3. Professionalism. The Board hires fund managers already engaged in managing money in the financial markets for private investors. 4. Conservatism. Each fund manager invests only in equity index funds that mirror the market broadly (e.g. the Wilshire 5000) so that the government is at no time engaged in the business of picking winners and losers. 5. Diversification. The total amount allocated to each fund manager is limited so that no one controls a disproportionate share of the overall activity of any single company. 6. Neutrality. In proxy battles, the fund managers would not decide how to vote the shares. The shares would instead be voted automatically through ``mirror voting'', where the fund's votes are cast in the same proportion as the votes cast by all other shareholders.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate coach Jim Phelan and the Mount St. Mary's Mountaineers on earning a bid to the NCAA basketball championship for only the second time in their school's history. The Mounties won the right to go to the Big Dance by defeating the Blue Devils of Central Connecticut State on Monday night by a 72-56 margin. Monday night's victory was the third straight upset for the Mountaineers who were seeded sixth entering the Northeast Conference Tournament. The Mount was led by the smooth shooting of Gregory Harris and the tenacious defense of Melvin Whitaker. In addition to earning a right to play in the NCAA championships, Monday's victory was also an historic event for their longtime coach. Jim Phelan became only the fourth coach in NCAA history to win 800 games. He joins the ranks of Adolph Rupp, Dean Smith and Clarence Gaines and is the winningest active coach in the NCAA. Coach Phelan's 800 wins demonstrate his commitment to the school, his players and his community. I am convinced the Hall of Fame is just around the corner. Congratulations Mount Saint Mary's, and congratulations Coach Jim Phelan.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare for the 21st century and a new millennium, those of us who have the privilege and duty to serve as elected officials in Washington should recognize a fundamental truth. The United States of America's enduring strength as a Nation depends not upon the actions of the Federal Government but upon the hard work and contributions that millions of Americans undertake on a daily basis to improve their own lives and the lives of their families, neighborhoods and communities as individuals and through voluntary philanthropic organizations such as the Knights of Columbus. March 2 marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Maryland State Council of the Knights of Columbus. Knights of Columbus have worked and continue to work for the betterment of their country, States, church, community and fellow man through personal service and sacrifices. Through myriad activities the Knights contribute to four simple principles: charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism. Mr. Speaker, I ask today that all Americans join me in saluting the accomplishments of the Knights of Columbus in Maryland. The work of the Knights of Columbus and other philanthropic organizations represent American ideals in action.