Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, three of the six counties in our district are in Appalachia where WIC is a very important program. I am a strong supporter of WIC, and if I believed for 1 minute that this bill shortchanged the WIC Program, I would be supporting the Obey amendment. I think the facts indicate otherwise. The WIC Program is completely funded in this program. We need to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California for his support. Since the cryogenically cooled infrared sensor was operating until February of this year and BMDO was utilizing the satellite, there was not an opportunity for NASA to use this spacecraft. Given that NASA and BMDO have already signed a memorandum of agreement for the cooperative exploitation of environmental data from MSX, and that BMDO has identified that there will be over 50 percent availability of MSX for other users, the timing seems perfect for the utilization of MSX by NASA.

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy for a few moments. As the chairman may know, as part of H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space Authorization Act, which the House passed by voice vote, there was a provision which authorized appropriations of $8 million for the continued operation of the midcourse space experiment satellite within the Mission to Planet Earth at National Aeronautics and Space Administration. MSX was constructed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization with a cryogenically cooled infrared sensor. As expected, the cryogen expired in February of this year, thereby rendering that part of the satellite inoperative. With the loss of the infrared sensor, BMDO's use of MSX is now limited. However, there is the availability of a lot of other sensor capability on the satellite, including the hyperspectral imaging system, which shows great promise as part of the Mission to Planet Earth. While MSX would not replace any specific portion of the MTPE constellation, it would give NASA the opportunity to utilize MSX's unique hyperspectral imaging system at a relatively low cost. This system is fully functional and could help address numerous scientific and operational concerns NASA will have to resolve.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] very much.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, maybe some of my liberal friends on the other side of the aisle can help me with a problem I am having. I am trying to get to the bottom of this family economic income business. For example, if I make $45,000 a year and I would like to apply for a loan, can I put down $75,000 a year as my income on the loan application form? After all, I heard this great news from my liberal friends that under this great new economic family income concept I am actually much, much richer than I think. Let us take another example. If I make $45,000 a year and I would like to buy a house, and I put down $75,000 a year as my income on the mortgage application, will they still send me to jail for lying on my form if they check to see what I really make? Mr. Speaker, will I be able to use the family economic income defense? Will the judge buy that? After all, I can say, Wait, judge, the Secretary of the Treasury himself said this was an honest way to calculate what people really make. I wonder.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Americans are confused by a lot of misinformation about capital gains tax cuts. For instance, liberal Democrats whine that the capital gains tax cuts are gifts from the Federal Government to the rich, and the liberal media use their megaphones to repeat these claims as if they were the truth. Let us remember that capital is just another word for the money that is the source and the lifeblood of every job and every business that ever has been or ever will be created. Forty percent of all the stock in America is owned by families making less than $75,000 per year. The capital gains tax cut will help millions of middle class Americans: Every American who has invested in a mutual fund, every American who saves for a home, every American who invests for their retirement or have pensions, every American who saves for their children's education. The liberals are wrong. A capital gains tax reduction is not a tax break for the wealthy.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just two very simple points, and I rise in strong opposition to the Harman amendment. The first point is that the law assures complete health care for our women in the military. If they have a pregnancy problem and their life is at risk, they are assured complete health care. But let me say very emphatically that killing preborn babies is not health care. Let me say it again. Killing preborn babies is not health care. The second point I want to make is that our military physicians and our military hospitals do not want to perform these abortions. They did not do it when we did not have a law precluding them from doing it. They do not want to do this. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The American people are opposed to it. We need to vote it down.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, here is a riddle that is very confusing to Americans: How does your $35,000 income turn into an income of $75,600? Answer: When liberal Democrats are doing the counting. According to the Census Bureau, 71 percent of the tax cuts from the Republican tax bill will go to people who earn between $20,000 and $75,000 a year. However, the administration says that over 77 percent of the tax cuts will go to people earning more than $75,000 a year. Who is right? Well, one has to understand that the administration figures what one earns does not count; what the administration counts is one's family economic income. Note: Say your family's income is $35,000. To that one will have to add, according to the administration, $18,000 for the rent one could get if one did not live in his house; $5,500 for the family health insurance his employer provides; $3,000 for the buildup in his pension; $2,000 a year for one's IRA contribution; $1,500 for the buildup of one's life insurance policy; $600 for one's parking space at work, and it goes on and on until your income is $75,600. The administration's tax books are cooked.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it should be a no-brainer that tax cuts should go to people who are taxpayers. Many Americans might well wonder how anyone could even think of, let alone give, a tax cut to people who do not pay taxes. But remember, this is Washington. Words mean nothing. That is why tax cuts are still a defining difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are for tax cuts. Republicans believe that hard-working Americans deserve to keep and spend more of the money that they earn. For too long, Democrats opposed any tax cuts for working Americans as gifts from Washington to the so- called rich. Now, some Democrats claim they support tax cuts. However, actions speak louder than words. It turns out the Democrats and the President's proposed tax credit for children would transfer more money from the pockets of taxpayers to the pockets of people who pay no taxes. Americans are wondering, Mr. Speaker, why is the Democrats' child tax credit more like welfare spending than a tax cut?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, what do the American people want Congress to do about education? Let me quote from a letter from Mrs. Jan Horan of Westminster, MD. 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 is throwing money at education, and our educational system continues to deteriorate. The government to the rescue . . . while creating all of these safety nets . . . a tax burden for the middle class has been created that is to the point of enslavement. I want my children and grandchildren to have a future free of this tax burden, to be able to live in a country that does not have a substandard public education system When are you, the elected officials, going to come out of your glass bubble and see what you are doing to this Nation? Common sense is what it takes from the elected officials. Let's try using it. Mrs. Horan, I could not agree more. I hope everyone in Congress is listening and will follow that advice.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, during Teacher Appreciation Week, I hope everyone in Congress will support our efforts to make schools safe for teachers and children. As a teacher for 24 years, I know firsthand that without safety and discipline in the classroom, no teacher can teach and no student can learn. Congress is examining what works and what is wasted in the area of safety and discipline as part of our ongoing Education at the Crossroads project. I hope everyone in Congress will vote for the Juvenile Crime Control Act this week. This bill will reform the juvenile justice system, it will make violent juvenile offenders accountable for their actions. It will help keep violent juveniles out of our classrooms and off our playgrounds. These steps will help us fulfill our moral obligation to provide our children with a good education so that they will have the tools to achieve the American dream.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, as the holder of 20 patents myself, I feel compelled to rise today in support of the Rohrabacher substitute. For over 200 years, the American patent system has empowered inventors to make this country the most innovative in the world. If H.R. 400 becomes law, small businesses and inventors will be forced to publish their patents before receiving a patent. This opens the door for every copycat in the world to steal this information and begin manufacturing and marketing before the inventor has patent protection. Ladies and gentlemen, our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to recognize the need for a patent system unlike anywhere else in the world that promoted the concept of entrepreneurship and protected ingenuity. Their foresight has resulted in the greatest industrial power this world has ever seen. Let us not weaken this protection in the name of international harmonization. Next week I will hold hearings in the Subcommittee on Government Programs of the Committee on Small Business on this issue. I look forward to continuing this dialog.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak to the Members for a few moments from the heart. I am not an expert in patents, but maybe I have some credibility. I hold 20 patents. I was in the academic world for 24 years, and during a part of that I was an inventor. I was a small business man with an R&D company, and my intellectual creations were the basis of that small business. Mr. Chairman, there is just no reason, no defensible justification for publishing these patents 18 months after they are filed. The only possible reason could be to prevent submarine patents, but CRS has said, and we can see it here by me, both bills seek to curtail submarine patenting and would likely end the practice. If the Rohrabacher bill is not perfect, let us make it perfect. But let us not undermine the protection that countless thousands of small inventors like myself have with the present system. We do not need to change this system. I have had a lot of mail on this. I have not had a single telephone call, a single fax, or a single letter that said ``Support H.R. 400;'' not a one of them, and not all of these small people out there can be wrong. I had the notion when I came to Congress that maybe the great wisdom of the country was not inside the Beltway. The longer I am here, the surer I am that that is true. These people from outside the Beltway have called me and faxed me and written letters to me, and every one of them who have done it, and there have been a large number, have said, please do not vote for H.R. 400, vote for the Rohrabacher bill. We do not need to bring down our patent system to the level of the Japanese, to harmonize under our GATT agreement. Let them come up to our level of excellence. If we pass H.R. 400, it will cost us jobs. It will cost us jobs because of the lack of protection that our entrepreneurs now have. We are the greatest economic force this world has seen. It is largely because of the protection of our entrepreneur system. It is true that to at least some degree, America's future is on the line in this vote. Please do the right thing for the little guy that I represented so many years out there. Do not vote to give away our secrets to every copycat around the world. Protect our entrepreneurs. Vote for the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, prohibiting barbaric partial- birth abortions is a matter of whether we are a civilized society, not whether we are pro-life or pro-choice. It is a sad commentary on the slippery slope of loss of respect for the dignity of human life in our society that we in Congress once more have to debate whether it is OK to kill babies this way. Let us understand exactly what is involved in this procedure. Labor in the mother is induced, the baby is turned and then partially delivered, feet first, with its head kept inside the womb. While still living, scissors or a trocar are inserted in the back of the baby's head, its brain is then suctioned out and skull collapsed before the baby is removed from the womb. If Congress were voting about a method of execution, stabbing someone in the back of their head and sucking out their brains I am sure would not get a single vote in the Congress. If this would be wrong for the most heinous criminals, how can it be right for innocent babies?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Congress today will be voting on the Working Families Flexibility Act. This bill is very simple. It gives workers the right and the flexibility to choose how they wish to be compensated when they work overtime, with more time or more money. This is not a radical notion. Passing this bill will merely give workers in the private sector the very same choice government workers now enjoy. Who are we in Congress to tell a working mother or father that overtime pay is the only compensation they can get for working overtime? What if a worker prefers getting comp time? Workers now have no choice at all. The Working Families Flexibility Act will make it easier to balance the demands of work and family. The Working Families Flexibility Act will give workers the freedom to choose whether time or money is more important to them at any given time. Let us put our trust in the American workers. Let us pass the Working Families Flexibility Act.

Mr. BARTLETT

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, relative to the issue of allegiance, I would just like to say it is my understanding that all of the commanders in Macedonia take an exclusive oath of allegiance to the United Nations. I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is not an issue of safety or identification. Our troops have performed spectacularly in past U.N. operations in which they wore the standard U.S. uniform. I think everybody recognizes a U.S. soldier. Second, a bright baby blue cap and shoulder pads do not make our troops any safer. I believe this is equivalent to when we removed the brass from our officers' battle dress uniforms. However, if the administration determines it is absolutely necessary for our troops to wear some kind of additional identification, Congress has the power to authorize such wear. Although the Clinton administration has chosen to ignore U.S. law, all U.N. peacekeeping operations that are mandated under chapter 7 of the U.N. charter must receive prior congressional approval before such a deployment. Therefore, there is ample opportunity for Congress to authorize the wear of such identification symbols if they are needed and requested. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about what our military is; it is about what our military stands for and what our soldiers' allegiances are. If my colleagues oppose this amendment and do not believe that things we attach to a uniform are significant enough to warrant this debate, I ask them to remember for a moment the tragic case of Adm. Jerry Boorda. Uniforms are symbols of what we are. They represent our values and our culture. I urge my colleagues to support the Bartlett-Chenoweth-Traficant amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] who is an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not, this amendment is not about Michael New, and that is something of a distraction. But since he has been brought into it, I would simply say that he and all of our other military personnel have been told not to obey an unlawful order. Whether or not this is a lawful order is now being tested in the courts. The courts will decide whether or not it was a lawful order. Second, none of our troops can be sent on a U.N. mission without the permission of the Congress, because the U.N. Participation Act says that chap- ter 7, they have all been chapter 7, the Congress must give permission. If they get permission to deploy the troops, they can give permission to wear the insignia if that is necessary. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today is very simple. It will prohibit any member of the Armed Forces from being forced to wear any badge, symbol, helmet, head gear, or other visible insignia which indicates allegiance or affiliation to the United Nations unless specifically authorized by Congress. The centerpiece of my amendment is our soldiers' status. Many of our military personnel believe that when they don their battle dress uniforms with accoutrements from the United Nations, they become U.N. soldiers. Indeed, in some cases they are placed under the operational control of a U.N. commander who has not taken an oath to defend the Constitution, but has rather taken an exclusive oath of allegiance to the United Nations. The concern of our men and women of the Armed Forces is corroborated by Vice President Al Gore who, during a funeral for the soldiers who died in a friendly fire accident over Iraq, in an attempt to console the families, said the following, and I quote: ``I offer my condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations,'' end quote. Clearly, in at least the Vice President's mind, our soldiers were fighting as U.N. soldiers. We must never allow this to happen again. Second, one brave U.S. Army medic, Specialist Michael New, had the courage to challenge the President's policy of requiring our troops to wear the uniform of the United Nations. It is important to remember that Michael New was not anti-U.N. He served with distinction in other U.N. operations, specifically, in Kuwait. However, in that operation Specialist New was required to wear the uniform of the United States, not the U.N. insignia. When Michael New was ordered to go to Macedonia as part of Operation Able Sentry, he was told he would be required to wear the blue beret and soldier patch of the United Nations. Believing that he had no allegiance to the United Nations, he questioned the authority of this order. For his faithfulness to the United States, Michael New was court-martialed and given a bad conduct discharge which will follow him for the rest of his life. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today will not affect Michael New or his case. However, it will prevent this situation from ever happening again. Our servicemen and women must always fight as U.S. soldiers and must never be asked to choose allegiances between the United States and the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], a coauthor of the amendment, be allowed to control half of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. The problems have been corrected by this manager's amendment, which was the primary reason I was the lone vote against this bill in committee. I am very appreciative of the assistance of Chairman Spence in making this bill a very much better bill.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I appreciate that very much and yield that 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].