Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, President Bill Clinton's reckless and reprehensible affair with Monica Lewinsky put him at risk for extortion, undermining our national security. His subsequent words and actions have thrust upon us the grave duty to consider impeachment. The Committee on the Judiciary report provides sufficient and creditable evidence that William Jefferson Clinton abused his power as President and undermined the integrity of the coequal judicial branch by obstructing justice and lying under oath both in a civil deposition and before a federal grand jury. He perpetuated these lies in written responses to the Congress. If we are to honor and uphold our Constitution, this behavior cannot be tolerated. Without truth there is no justice. No man is above the law. These are the foundations of our government. Our entire system of justice is imperiled if we do not act and thereby establish the precedent that a President nor anyone cannot pick and choose when he will testify truthfully and when he will not. For these reasons I will vote for the articles of impeachment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it is not too often that a single, simple change in the law can save the Government tens of millions of dollars, but this is true of a technical amendment that the House has enacted. I became aware of this opportunity as a member of the House subcommittee overseeing DoD's commissaries, which are supermarkets operated at military facilities around the world. In October 1995, the commissaries awarded an important contract for category management services to Marketing and Management Information, Inc. (MMI), a small company in my State. Under this contract, MMI was required to provide the commissaries with almost $100 million in cash and free services, in exchange for sales data that the commissaries collect automatically. MMI first conceived this arrangement more than a decade earlier, and already had paid millions of dollars to the commissaries under earlier contracts. The 1995 contract was awarded after full and open competition, in which MMI prevailed against three competitors literally 50 times larger than MMI. In other words, this David beat three different Goliaths. At this point, the losers turned to high-priced Washington lawyers, who conceived the strategy of arguing that the competition ran afoul of the Brooks Act, one of the great achievements of our well-remembered former colleague from Texas. Now, this was simply sour grapes on their part, because they never raised this argument during the competition, when each of them was hoping to receive the contact. In fact, the commissaries said months before the award that the Brooks Act didn't apply, and none of them made a peep at that point. Nevertheless, they all got together right after the award and sued the Government to stop the contract. Now, the Brooks Act gave the GSA authority over computer purchases by the other agencies. The contract awarded to MMI was for the sale of commissary scanner data, which has as much in common with computer purchases as a hat does to a rat. Nevertheless, the GSA saw an opportunity to expand its little empire, and it tried to do so. The GSA told the commissaries that they needed written permission (a ``delegation'') to proceed with the contract. Interestingly enough, the same thing had happened five years earlier. Then, the commissaries pushed the paperwork through, and everyone was happy. This time, however, acting on poor legal advice from William Sherman (the Government attorney responsible for losing the protest), the commissaries unwisely dug in their heels, and did nothing to clear the paperwork. MMI's contract remained at a standstill. The great irony is that a few months earlier, the Congress repealed the Brooks Act, eliminating this paperwork requirement for all of the agencies. Thus the contract was being held up by paperwork that wasn't even required any more. This repeal was accomplished in the Clinger- Cohen Act, authored by our dear former colleague William Cohen, who now oversees the military commissaries and the rest of DoD. With the commissaries doing nothing to solve this problem, MMI appealed the GSA's decision. Rather than helping MMI, the commissaries imprudently claimed that they could do without MMI's money and free services, and would provide the same services with their own staff at Government expense. I asked the commissaries to provide me with a single example of any MMI report that they were able to generate themselves. They were unable to do so. In other words, the commissaries were wasting public money in an unsuccessful effort to duplicate services successfully performed by private enterprise for the past 15 years, at no cost to the Government. In the appeal, MMI succeeded in getting the GSA's decision vacated, meaning that nothing prevented the commissaries from proceeding with the contract. Since the commissaries claimed that they would do without the money and free services, the court left it to the commissaries and MMI to work things out. At this point the commissaries, again acting on poor advice from Mr. Sherman, still maintained that they would needlessly deprive themselves of MMI's money and free services, and try to make up for these losses in other ways. MMI then filed a $45 million claim against the commissaries. Thus, through the commissaries stubborn insistence on infringing on private enterprise, we reached a point where the Government could end up losing $45 million, rather than receiving almost $100 million in cash and free services. I am happy to report that a simple technical amendment adopted by the House solves this problem. The technical amendment makes it clear that the Clinger-Cohen repeal of the Brooks Act means that there never was any requirement for the commissaries to obtain a ``delegation'' here, nor is there any valid basis of any kind for protesting the award to MMI. As a result, the amendment orders the commissaries to proceed with the MMI contract beginning 15 days after enactment, and to continue that contract for its full five-year term from that date, through the year 2003. Under the contract, MMI alone will receive the commissary sales data during this period, and it will provide the commissaries with the valuable cash and free services stipulated in the contract. Here in Congress, we rely on the other Branches of Government to carry out our intentions. With the repeal of the Brooks Act, there is no doubt that we wanted to eliminate GSA oversight of other federal agencies, once and for all. In the case of MMI's contract, however, the other Branches just weren't listening. The result has been to take the commissaries to within an inch of disaster. I am very happy that just a few words from us about our intentions, in the form of this technical amendment, will have the extraordinary effects of providing the Government with almost $100 million in cash and free services, avoiding the sheer waste of duplicating these services at the taxpayers' expense, and also avoiding the crushing blow of a $45 million judgment against the commissaries. I want to thank my respected colleague Congresswoman Morella, and others who have supported this effort. On a day like today, I am very proud to be a member of the subcommittee overseeing the commissaries, and a Member of this august body.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, S. J. Res. 51 would provide Congress' consent to a compact between the States of West Virginia and Maryland establishing the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority. This legislation has been passed by the Senate and has the support of the Senators from both States and the Members of Congress from the districts concerned. This bill is of great importance to my constituents as well as to me personally. As you may know, in 1944 the city of Cumberland, located in Allegany County, Maryland, purchased land 3 miles south of the city in Wiley Ford, West Virginia for the construction of an airport. In 1976 the States of Maryland and West Virginia entered into a compact establishing the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority. The need for the compact stems from the unusual nature of the airport. It is located in one State, but owned by a municipality in another. Accordingly there has been a certain degree of uncertainty about the ability of the airport authority to guarantee to pay for loans they may receive. This was discovered as the Authority was in the process of undertaking a 20-year $10 million expansion program and had applied for a loan from the Department of Agriculture. In its denial of the loan, the Department replied that it could not provide the loan unless Congress were to provide its consent to the bi-state compact between West Virginia and Maryland. The loan from the USDA represented an important part of this expansion program. While congressional approval of the compact will obviously facilitate the improvement of the airport specifically, it will also have a positive impact on the economic development of region as a whole. As you may know, the Greater Cumberland Regional Airport, is located in rural Appalachia. According to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, Allegany County, Maryland has an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, almost 90 percent higher than the national average. This number does not even consider the great number of people who have become so discouraged that they have stopped seeking employment. The simple reason for this high unemployment rate is that the area has suffered from the closing of a number of employers and has been unable to attract employers sufficient to replace the lost jobs. The critical task in the coming years will be for local and State leaders to attract new employers to the area. In working with businesses that are considering moving to area, one of the critical deciding factors for their relocation is access to first rate infrastructure. Businesses considering moving to the region will need to know commercial aviation users. The Potomac Highland Airport Authority has a 20-year plan that will allow it to expand to accommodate the increased utilization of the facility. The House's approval of this bill is an important step in providing the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority with the tools necessary to be an active participant in the region's expansion.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly supportive of expanded free and open trade, but this bill is not the way to get there. It is unconstitutional. I have here a press release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the media in my district, chastising me for not supporting this bill. They make my point. Listen. ``* * * noted that with fast track, negotiators would be able to close deals.'' The President and his negotiators closed the deal. Where is the Congress? We would become merely a rubber stamp, clearly in violation of the Constitution. I am all for free and expanded trade. This is not the way to get there, at the expense of our Constitution. If we do not understand it, the U.S. Chamber understands it. The President and his negotiators would close the deal.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, these are very difficult remarks for me, but I cannot keep faith with hundreds of thousands of Americans without rising to express major concern about a portion of this bill. The Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America and Focus on the Family are all calling for a no vote on this bill. They are doing that because they love this country. They are doing that because they really support a strong military. Their concern is that this report failed to include language on requiring separate gender training in PT, in small units recommended by the Kassebaum-Baker panel, included in our House bill and endorsed by a letter to the conferees signed by all of senior leadership and by all but one of our full committee chairs. Not a single woman plays professional football. Not a single woman plays professional baseball. Men and women are different, and they need to be trained separately in PT. No matter how long we worship at the altar of political correctness, it will not change this fact. We need to send this bill back to conference so we can report out a good bill that we can pass that is really going to support our military. If we continue with the present policy, it assures continued embarrassing sexual misconduct scandals. The chaplain at Fort Leonard Wood said what we are trying to do runs contrary to the powers of nature. Secondly, it is contrary to good order and discipline. It puts readiness at risk. It puts the lives of our young military people at risk. Please send this back to committee. Support these hundreds of thousands of Americans that want a strong military and appropriate training for our young people.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I hope Americans will take time during the week of August 9 to note the accomplishments and contributions that truck drivers and the trucking industry have made to our lives and the prosperity of the American economy. Consider: From 1986 to 1996, the fatality rate for large trucks fell by 35 percent, while large truck mileage increased by 40 percent. The trucking industry employs nearly 9.5 million Americans. More than 423,000 companies in the United States are involved in trucking. In 1996 the trucking industry generated $346 billion in gross revenues, hauling 6.5 billion tons of freight. Incidentally, that represents 82 percent of the Nation's freight bill. I encourage everyone to celebrate the great safety record and the contribution to our well-being of America's truckers by making August 9 to August 15 National Truck Driver Appreciation Week.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple amendment. It simply strikes the funding for the payment of U.N. debt arrearages, and I do this for several reasons. First of all, whatever debt we owe for arrearages and dues has already been paid several times over by our participation in legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. First of all, here is a GAO report that says that between 1992 and 1995, the United States spent $6.6 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. Recognizing the legitimacy of this, the U.N. has credited us with $1.8 billion of that against back dues, no credit for the remainder. Secondly, here is a CRS report, more recently. This report covers from 1992 to May of last year. This report says that we have spent during that time period $11.1 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. This, of course, includes the monies that were in the GAO report. In addition to that, the Pentagon itself, in two reports that I have, one for last year which says that just last year alone we spent $2.9 billion on U.N. peacekeeping activities, the other report says that the year before last we spent $3.3 billion on U.N. peacekeeping activities. So whatever back dues we might owe, we have paid them several times over as indicated by these reports by our participation in legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. This past spring President Clinton requested $1.36 billion in emergency funds for the Department of Defense to pay for the ongoing mission in Iraq. Recognizing that this was a U.N. peacekeeping activity, the United States, Kofi Annan said, would be required to get U.N. approval prior to bombing Iraq. These monies were spent in pursuit of a legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activity. The CRS reports that in 1995, the U.S. State Department estimated that the United States paid for 54 percent of all United Nations peacekeeping activities. We are required to pay for just over 30 percent; clearly, a big surplus that should be credited against our dues. The second reason for striking this language is that the United Nations is not reforming. A year ago we put them on notice that they would get back dues when they had reformed. They are clearly not reforming. They are putting 100 new people on when they said they were going to reduce their staff. And a committee of the United Nations itself, the General Assembly's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions said, and I quote, Mr. Kofi Annan's report was wrong to say U.N. headquarters staff had to support 4,921 troops. He wants a big headquarters staff to support nearly 5000 troops, but those troops are reduced to zero, this committee said, by July 1, 1998. He still has the staff there. Another reason, a third reason for striking these funds is that we now have a major problem with the International Criminal Court. The Clinton administration was party to spawning this. Now it has become a major problem, because it is going to be an agency of the General Assembly in which we have no veto, rather than the Security Council where we do have a veto. As a matter of fact, the United Nations voted against us 120 to 7 relative to the International Criminal Court. And we want to give them $475? I think not. In summary, we need to strike this language because we have already paid the dues, whatever they are, several times over with legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. Witness the four government reports. Secondly, the U.N. is not reforming, as they promised they would. And, thirdly, we have a major problem with the international criminal court. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I would like to pay tribute to Officers Jacob Joseph (J.J.) Chestnut and John Michael Gibson of the United States Capitol Police and extend my condolences to their families and colleagues. This is a solemn duty that I undertake on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the sixth district of Maryland and elected me to represent them in the 105th Congress of the United States of America. John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut were exemplary members of the thin blue line of the United States Capitol Police. The men and women in this law enforcement force protect and defend the most important symbol of our representative democracy, the magnificent Capitol building. Their joyful but anonymous and humble service touches and enriches the lives of thousands of their fellow Americans and visitors who work in or visit the Capitol on a daily basis. They serve and protect millions of us. The excellence, quiet dignity, and anonymity that were the hallmarks of the careers of Officers Chestnut and Gibson was swept away in a matter of seconds by a violent attack. The fury may have been directed by madness, but it is clear that this deliberately deadly attack was unleashed upon the Capitol because this building is open to everyone and is the most central and sacred symbol of our democratically elected government. Moreover, it is clear that members of the Capitol Police were the special and first targets of this assault. I don't believe as human beings we will ever be able to understand why it was the fate of Officers Gibson and Chestnut to be called upon to face the fire that was unleashed during those moments of utter chaos. Officers Chestnut and Gibson instantly stepped into that awful breach. Without hesitation, they swiftly ended that attack and protected the lives of hundreds of others by willingly sacrificing their own lives. It is fitting and proper, I believe it is our duty to honor their bravery and the courage of their sacrifice. Words are inadequate to express how grateful we as a nation are today to John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut. I believe President Abraham Lincoln perhaps said it best when he honored the fallen heroes at Gettysburg for ``offering the last full measure of devotion'' to preserving and protecting the cause of freedom and ``government of, by, and for the people.'' Words are inadequate to express the condolences we as a nation pay to the Gibson and Chestnut families and to the members of the Capitol Police on the loss of their loved ones. We cannot erase their grief. We can only offer this small tribute to comfort them. As a living tribute to the memories of Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, I hope the Capitol will continue to remain open and accessible under the unsurpassed protection of our thin blue line, the United States Capitol Police. Our democratically elected government was attacked, but the thin blue line was not breached. The line held. Our freedom and liberty have been secured once more by the terrible and brave sacrifice of two good men.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, today on the House floor we plan to debate the Commerce, State and Justice appropriations bill. Funding for the constitutionally mandated census in the year 2000 is an issue that the American people will soon be hearing a lot more about. First let me remind my Democratic colleagues of a provision in the U.S. Constitution that they routinely ignore in their discussions of the census. Because I know that Democrats are not in the habit of carrying around the Constitution with them, I will make their life easier by quoting Article I, Section 2 from the document to which you swore an oath: The actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of 10 years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. Now, despite the liberal Democrat habit of finding things in the Constitution, there is no getting around the words that are there for all to see. ``Actual enumeration'' no matter how you slice it means exactly what it says. Congress shall by law direct an actual count, not an approximate guess, poll or sample. Period.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, today during the fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill vote on the amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to continue funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, I intended to vote ``no'' for her amendment. I thought I voted ``no'' for her amendment. The voting machine indicated a ``yes'' vote. I would like the Record to show that I intended to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, the United States Savings Bond National Student Poster Contest provides an opportunity for thousands of our children to learn the value of saving money while increasing the public awareness of buying U.S. savings bonds as an easy way to save and invest in their own and America's future success. I am extremely proud of one of my constituents, Jessica Lorine Gonder of Funkstown, Maryland, who designed posters which won both the 1997 and 1998 Maryland State contest. Her impressive freehand design, which I wish everyone could see, is the 1998 National Second Place winner. Jessica was just a sixth grader at E. Russell Hicks Middle School in Hagerstown, Maryland, in Washington County. Jessica Gonder's award-winning posters are another testament to America's greatness and our leadership in the world. In America, competition, hard work, and perseverance improve quality and are the keys to achieving success. Madam Speaker, I say, ``Congratulations, Jessica.''

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for a good job. I would like to clarify that the intent of the committee was not to prevent the Federal solar programs from cost sharing. I congratulate the gentleman on a well-earned retirement.

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) deserves credit for sustaining Federal renewable energy RD&D. I would like to clarify the intent of the report language as it pertains to the solar energy research and development programs.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like the President to explain to the American people why authority for approving technology transfers to Communist China was transferred from the State Department to the Commerce Department in this administration. I would like to know why national security concerns would be overruled by commercial considerations, thus endangering the security of all Americans. The idea that it is official U.S. policy to improve Communist China's rockets defies explanation. Instead of developing a missile defense system of our own, this administrations is helping to develop Communist China's strategic nuclear missile program, a program with missiles even now aimed at the United States. This policy is madness, utter madness, and I am still awaiting an explanation from this administration why they determined that assisting Communist China in the development of its ``Long March'' missile is in the national interest of the United States. Refusing to build a national missile defense because perfecting China's missiles is a higher priority is not only nutty and bizarre, it clearly puts our country at increased risk.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendment, and thank the chairman of the committee for including the Bartlett-Solomon amendment in this package. I believe that a picture is worth a thousand words, and this picture shows a scene which should grab the attention of every Member of Congress. Last Thursday, on the East Front of the Capitol, 12 members of the New York Air National Guard, all of whom were combat-decorated veterans, surrendered their combat medals and decorations on the steps of the Capitol in protest. These men, who are some of our Nation's best and brightest, were protesting the actions of the New York Air National Guard, who, with reckless abandon and complete disregard for combat capability, bowed at the altar of political correctness and rushed an unqualified female pilot into the combat unit at the expense of military readiness. When the members of the Air Guard brought their allegations to their chain of command, their unit was grounded, and the pilots who brought the allegations forward were transferred, demoted, or dismissed. These brave men, in whom our country has invested over $20 million, have shown that the New York Air Guard investigation into these allegations was fraught with charges of coverup, withholding of evidence, and perjury. We cannot allow political correctness to ruin the lives and careers of members of the military who have sacrificed their lives for this country. The Bartlett-Solomon amendment will require a DOD inspector general to investigate the grounding of the Air National Guard. I urge support of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, our President may be a globalist. He may genuinely believe that if we support a U.N. army that is stronger than the military of any member state, that this will permit the United Nations to keep the peace in the world. This rapid response force could very easily be a first step in this direction. Clearly, the President means it to be a step in whatever direction he intends to go because he has given them $200,000. I have some problem understanding how he can do this because Article I, section 9 of the Constitution says, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' The Congress makes those appropriations. We made no such appropriation. I do not understand how the President can give our taxpayers' money to the U.N. without an act of Congress. The citizens of our country do not support any such idea as a standing army or rapid response force in the United Nations. They support the Constitution, which says very clearly, in Article I, section 8, ``The Congress shall have power to declare war.'' The President cannot do this, and any time he sends troops in harm's way it is the equivalent of a declaration of war, and I submit that that is technically in violation of the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, if we vote down this amendment, Americans will think that we have gone mad. If we are going to be involved in military activities, we need to do so as Americans and under the control of Americans. The gentleman from Missouri made the argument that if we pass this amendment that we will limit the President's ability to send our troops hither and yon in the world. I should hope so. I think that when he uses taxpayers' money in sending our troops to faraway lands where they are in harm's way, that is the exact equivalent of a declaration of war. Except in a dire emergency, he has no right to do this. Americans do not want him to continue to do this. That is Congress's responsibility, as defined by the Constitution. Americans in poll after poll support the spirit of this amendment by at least 4 to 1. This amendment does not say we cannot participate in planning or in execution. It simply says, our involvement will not be automatic because we are a member of some rapid response force. It says that we will decide each time what is in our best national interest. The amendment does not prohibit joint operations. It simply says that when we are involved, we will decide and we will control. Mr. Chairman, this is a very common sense amendment which Americans overwhelmingly support. We must support it here also.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, for many years before it was law, no abortions were done in our military hospitals. The reason was that military doctors will not do abortions. The present policy and its law is that if the life of the mother is at risk, those abortions are permitted. As a matter of fact, they are fully funded. In cases of rape and incest, the abortion is permitted. When American people are polled, fully 80 percent of them oppose abortion for birth control. If you exclude life of the mother, rape and incest, essentially all that remains is abortion for birth control. A lot has been said about the health of the mother. Killing babies when the mother's life is not at risk is not a woman's health issue. Let me close by saying that you do not have a right to do what is wrong, and killing the preborn baby is wrong.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, how can Congress and the President stand by and consign yet another generation of poor children to failed schools and limited futures in our nation's capital, Washington, D.C.? What do the American people want Congress to do about education? Let me quote from a letter from Mrs. Jan Horan of Westminster, Maryland, and I quote: Enough is enough, and the American people have had enough. When is the Congress of this country going to realize that the government is the problem and not the solution? For years, the Congress has continued to throw money at what they perceive to be the problem. The government at all levels has thrown money at education, and our educational system continues to deteriorate. And I continue to quote: When are you, the elected officials, going do wake up and come out of your glass bubble and see what you are doing to this Nation? Mrs. Horan, I could not agree more, and I hope everyone in Congress will listen and support the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act. Instead of throwing money at the education bureaucracy as liberals want, it will assure that families at all income levels have the opportunity to secure a quality education for their children. School choice will give all of our children the chance for a better future that a good education can provide. We must save the children first.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend an extraordinary community and its school. Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland, celebrates its 100th anniversary this Sunday. Frostburg State University began as a community dream. Actually, it was the community coal miners' dream. It was a dream that all parents dream for their children: a better life than theirs. They knew the key to this dream was education. These concerned parents made a deal with the State legislature. The deal? If the coal miners could raise the money to buy the land for a State normal school, the General Assembly would appropriate funds for the buildings. These parents literally went door-to-door collecting money from their neighbors to keep their end of the deal. In April of 1898, the General Assembly of Maryland appropriated the funds for Maryland Normal School No. 2, which was built and opened its doors to 57 students. Today, Frostburg State University enrolls more than 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students and helps tens of thousands of dreams come true. Congratulations, Frostburg State University.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for his amendment which puts into law our joint resolution, of which he is one of 108 cosponsors, to require just this. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention in just the few moments I have, not only does Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution apply, but also Article II, Section 2, where it says the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States and the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. It is the Congress that does that. After they have been called into service, the President is then the Commander in Chief. This is a good amendment. It needs to stay in the bill.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I have sat in hearing after hearing where our intelligence community has told us that it would take rogue nations using indigenous capabilities 10 to 15 years to develop missile technologies that would threaten us or our allies. I never quite understood this. If I needed a moped, I am not sure that I would build a factory to build a moped. I think that I would go buy one from people who build them, which is precisely what Iran has done. A few months ago, we were informed by our intelligence community that Iran has now acquired technologies from Russia which will permit them, years and years ahead of any projected schedule, to launch missiles with 600 and 1,200 kilometer ranges that threaten our allies. This bill is a very measured response to this. It is not forging new frontiers. What we are doing in this bill is accelerating programs which are already in existence, where additional funds could move them forward so that we could meet the emerging threats. I want to compliment those on both sides of the aisle that worked to craft this bill. My only regret is that it could not have come to us several years ago, because we needed it then. We need it far worse now. Please support this very good legislation.