Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for the clarification.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 124, I was off the Hill well within 15 minutes return time. My pager did not respond to the 15-minute call. It did respond to the 10-minute call. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are asking this week, Mr. President, what happened to our middle-class tax cut? Twenty-nine million American families could have enjoyed a $500 per child tax credit. Three and a half million lower-income American families could have had their Federal income tax burden completely eliminated because of the $500 per child tax credit. Twenty-three million American couples could have received relief from the marriage tax penalty through a higher standard deduction. One hundred thousand American families could have benefited from a $5,000 credit to assist with adoption expenses. Americans that care for an elderly relative in their home could have benefited from a $1,000 elder care deduction. If Americans paid a tax on capital gains from selling their house or other asset, they paid twice as much as you should have. Under the Balanced Budget Act, millions of middle-class American families could have benefited from these tax cuts, except for one man. Mr. Speaker, taxpayers need to remember that President Clinton vetoed all of these middle-class tax cuts and a 7-year balanced budget.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, we want to spend a few minutes this afternoon looking at the very special case of Specialist Michael New. His name is out to a number of our people, but some may not be familiar with this case and the issues involved here. Michael New is the son of missionary parents. He was home schooled. He volunteered for the military. He was stationed in Germany. The group he was with was being moved to Macedonia. As a part of that move, they were told that they had to wear the insignia of the United Nations. Specialist New took the position that the oath he took when he entered the military was to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States; that he had not taken an oath to defend and protect the charter of the United Nations. Now, in the helicopter accident over Iraq, when several of our military personnel were killed, the Vice President, Al Gore, went to their parents and told them they should be proud of their sons who died as U.N. soldiers. Specialist New had the conviction that if he were to wear the insignia of the United Nations, that he would become, as the Vice President indicated, he would become a U.N. soldier, and he thought that this was a violation of the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He would gladly have gone to Macedonia as a U.S. soldier assisting in a U.N. operation. Our military personnel did that by the thousands in Korea. We were there and lost many lives over a number of years, but not one of our soldiers there was a U.N. soldier. They were all U.S. soldiers. What Specialist New was asked to do was something he felt was very different than this. He felt that he was being required to change his allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to the charter of the United Nations, and he was not willing to do this. He was told in his training that he was not to obey an unlawful order. Let me read to you from the 1990 Army field manual. U.S. soldiers are instructed that, quoting from the manual, Moral courage is as important as physical courage. Do not ease the way for others to do wrong. Stand up for your beliefs and what you know is right. Do not compromise your professional ethics or your individual values and moral principles. If you believe you are right after sober and considered judgment hold your position. This is precisely what Specialist New did. He had no problem in going to Macedonia. He would have willingly gone. As a matter of fact, he is a decorated soldier, once for saving the life of a comrade, and a second time for saving the eyesight of a comrade. So he was not trying to avoid a dangerous situation. His concern was the concern of conscience, that he could not in good conscience transfer his allegiance from the Constitution of the United States to the charter of the United Nations. He was court-martialed for this, and it is now under review within the military, but he was court- martialed, and he is to be given a bad conduct discharge. I have some charts here that will help us to understand how we got where we are. Let me put the first one up. As you can see in this chart, this defines the relationship between the U.N. charter and the law that regulates or controls how we relate to the United Nations. This is the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. In the U.N. charter, there are two chapters of relevance here. The first of those chapters is chapter 6. Chapter 6 relates to peace observations. It defines the role of the United Nations in peace observations. Chapter 7 defines the role of the United Nations in peace enforcement. There are significant differences between peace observation and peace enforcement. Now, the United Nations Participation Act of 1995 is the law which determines how we as a country relate ourselves to these two chapters of the United Nations. Interestingly, the two sections of this law, the Participation Act, are section 6 and section 7. But as you can see from the chart here, section 6 relates to chapter 7, which is peace enforcement, and it clearly requires prior congressional approval. Section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act, as you can see, relates to chapter 6, and this requires no congressional approval. But there are some limitations here. There cannot be more than 1,000 troops worldwide, and they have to be noncombatant troops. Now, which was this operation? Macedonia is a part of the overall ex- Yugoslavia operation. There have been a number of U.N. resolutions relative to it. Which one was this? This is a letter from the President, written by Bill Clinton to then Speaker of the House Thomas Foley, and this is justifying his order to deploy U.S. troops to Macedonia as a part of the overall effort in what used to be Yugoslavia, which, of course, includes Bosnia. Here is the significant statement. The President said that this was under chapter 6 of the U.N. charter. But let us look now at the position that the United Nations has taken relative to this. There have been 97 U.N. Security Council resolutions and 13 U.N. Secretary General reports that relate to the Yugoslavia situation and Bosnia and all of the missions, including Macedonia, which are associated with that. Of these 97 U.N. Security Council resolutions, 27 of these resolutions specifically refer to chapter 7. They say that it is a chapter 7 operation. Interestingly, not one of them, not one of them refers to this operation as the chapter 6 that the President said it was. So we have now a major difference between what the President said it was and what 27 resolutions of the United Nations said this operation was. Now, if it in fact was, and let me go back to the first chart here, if in fact it was a chapter 6 operation, then no congressional approval would be required. But the United Nations in their 27 resolutions said very clearly that it was a chapter 7, and if it was chapter 7, then it clearly requires prior congressional approval. There has been no congressional approval. This next chart is from some of the specific resolutions, and this is language which makes it even clearer that they have not made an error in designating it a chapter 7, determined to ensure the security of UNPROFOR and its freedom of movement for all of its missions, and to these ends under chapter 7. So this is another clear indication from 1 of the 27 resolutions that I mentioned, a clear indication that the United Nations felt that this was clearly a chapter 7 activity. We now go to several more of these. They used the kind of words that are consistent only with a militarized peace enforcement activity, or chapter 7. ``Demilitarization, protect, interpose, prevent hostilities.'' These are not descriptions of an observation force. These are descriptions of an enforcement force. So it is very clear from all of these resolutions in the United Nations that the United Nations felt this was a chapter 7, not a chapter 6. It is interesting that the administration has now admitted that it was a chapter 6, but they say, surprisingly, and let me go back to the first chart here, they say surprisingly it can be a chapter 6, but it can still relate to section 7 of this act. This, of course, is impossible. There is no way that you can construe section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act to be consistent with chapter 6 of the U.N. charter. So here we have the basis of the problem, Specialist New taking the position that he should not have to wear the insignia of the United Nations, that that transfers his allegiance, and his problem with this order which has led to the larger question of whether or not this was a lawful order. There are two levels of whether it is lawful. The first is even if it was a lawful mission, and it would appear that the President did not have the right to send the troops there because he had not had congressional approval and the United Nations said clearly it was a chapter 7, but even if he had the right to send the troops there, there is still the question of whether or not he could send our troops there as U.N. soldiers. Now, this gets into a third area, which is a broader one and a very interesting one, and that is one which has needed resolution for quite a while now. The Congress tried to do this in the so-called War Powers Act. There is in the Constitution the clear prescription of the responsibility of the Congress, and there is the clear prescription of the responsibility of the President. But between those two clearly defined areas there is a major gray area. I think that this has occurred because the Framers of our Constitution could not have anticipated the kind of world that we would be living in in 1996. Let me read from the Constitution the responsibilities of the Congress, because I think it is well to go back to the original language. The responsibility of the Congress is to declare war. It is to raise and support armies. It is to provide and maintain a Navy. Then, very significantly, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. I am reading from article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Now, if I go to the powers of the President, let me read the powers of the President relative to the military. They are taken from article 2, section 2. ``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 actual service of the United States.'' Now, there may be a grammarian's argument as to ``when called into the actual service of the United States,'' what does that refer to? Does it refer to the Army and the Navy and militia, or is it restricted to the militia alone? To determine what our forefathers had in mind, one needs to go back to put their statement in the context of the time. Remember when this was written, the fastest way one could travel on land was on horseback. Ordinarily armies marched. The fastest way to travel at sea was in a sailing boat. Clearly, nothing was going to happen very quickly in this kind of a world. I doubt that our forefathers ever envisioned that there would be a need to commit the troops before Congress had the opportunity to discharge its responsibilities. Again, let me read the responsibilities of the Congress to discharge its responsibilities. Let me read the responsibilities of the Congress to declare war. Now, sending troops in harms's way, where a number of thousands of them, as happened in Korea, could be killed, I am sure, and were killed, I am sure our forefathers would have envisioned this as the equivalent of declaring war. Now, to decide to send our troops to Macedonia in this operation there, I am sure they felt would come under either that declaration of war, or under to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. So we have a problem today, and that problem is that our military today must act in a fashion that our forefathers could never have imagined that they would need to act. For example, if an enemy in Asia were to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile and we knew the moment they launched it, it would be here in half an hour, that is clearly not time for the Congress to be convened and to make a declaration of war. Clearly our President has to have the ability to respond to that threat. Nobody wants to deny the President the opportunity to respond to that threat and others that may not be so severe and imminent but may not permit the Congress to convene and to go through the formal declaration of war. But there are many activities that our troops have been engaged in in the past and are now being engaged in which fall in this gray area. Clearly, clearly it was no great urgency that we send our troops to Somalia, no great urgency that we send them to Haiti, no great urgency that would have precluded the Congress from meeting that we sent our troops to Macedonia or to Bosnia. Yet in each of these instances, the President felt as Commander in Chief that he had the authority to commit our troops there. So this case of Specialist New has unearthed this much larger area, and that is what are the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress and what are the constitutional prerogatives of the President. This case is now going to foster a debate on this very important subject. Mr. Speaker, there have been disagreements among Presidents and Congresses. When we had a Republican President and Democrat Congress, we had a disagreement. We have that same disagreement now that we have a Democrat President and a Republican Congress. So Specialist New unwittingly, I think, has opened up this larger venue, an issue that really needs to be addressed. The Congress has the responsibility of funding the military, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy. If the President can commit our troops to have expensive ventures, then it could be argued that he has wandered into the congressional area of responsibility because we cannot commit troops without committing the moneys that are necessary to support them. So these are some very important issues that need to be addressed. Also there is another area of the Constitution that those who are pursuing legally the Specialist New case have mentioned. That is article I, section 9, which they think made the command that he got to put on the U.N. insignia not only a lawful command but a United States constitutional command. Let me read that and my colleagues use their judgment as to what they think our forefathers meant by this. Let me read the whole paragraph. It is the last short paragraph in article I, section 9: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them--that certainly includes the military--shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. Specialist New made the argument, we will remember, that he felt that being required to put on the insignia of the United Nations and then fighting as a United Nations soldier and, as the Vice President has said, dying as a United Nations soldier if dying in that fight, that he transferred his allegiance from the oath he took to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States to the charter of the United Nations. He felt this to be an unlawful order. He felt that this was a violation, and those who are pursuing his case agreed, that this is a violation of article I, section 9 of the Constitution that prohibits this action without the consent of the Congress. There has been no consent of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, this case is now going through the military court process. It is going through the appeals there. It is now being reviewed by a senior officer who will indicate shortly whether or not he concurs with the decision that was made by the court-martial. Let me mention, by the way, to make something very clear here that in this court-martial, the judge in the court-martial instructed the jury that it was beyond their pay grade to consider whether or not this was a lawful order. The word he used was that this had some political overtones and that this could not be decided in the military courts. So he instructed his jury that they had to consider that this was a lawful order. Mr. Speaker, if we consider it was a lawful order, obviously he did not go by the order. So the court-martial was no great surprise once we have the prescription that the jury had to consider this a lawful order. But the judge has made the point, as I read earlier, that he is willing to hear this argument after it has gone through the military courts. It is not that he has rejected the argument of Specialist New. It is just that he does not think this is an appropriate time for this to be heard in the civilian courts, in the Federal court system. As a matter of fact, in that last statement I read, he held the door open not just a little but he held the door open a great deal. He said, once the military proceedings are completed, and I would gather that he does not expect because of the position of the military that Sergeant New is going to get the kind of decision he wants, once the military proceedings are completed, Specialist New may either move to reopen this proceeding or file a new petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He had earlier said in his conclusions, just the page before, that the court takes his allegations very seriously. The court has taken them seriously, he says. So where we are now is that this case is proceeding through the military courts. It is now being reviewed by the senior officer. If that review, if he upholds the court-martial decision, then there is a formal appeals process and Specialist New's lawyers--who, by the way, are providing their services pro bono; they have recognized that this is a case that goes far beyond the heartfelt conviction of this young man--that this is a case that will be important in defining, helping to define the relationship between the President and the Congress and may go a long way to avoiding the kind of indiscriminate deployment of our troops around the country that many view are not necessarily in our vital national interest and would sap large amounts of money from the limited funds that we have to maintain a military that we desperately need to protect us against real enemies now and in the future. I hope that in the military courts that Sergeant New gets satisfaction. If they continue to take the position that his order was lawful, then he will not get satisfaction there, and it will move in due time into the Federal courts. We need a dialog all across America. The great wisdom of the country is not the 545 people who are inside the Halls of the Congress here, inside the beltway. The great wisdom of the country is out all across America. We need a dialog across America so that we have an input from our constituents in all of our districts across the country because we may need legislation in the Congress. We may need legislation here in the Congress to solve the problems that are brought out by Specialist New's courageous action. We would like our citizens to become very knowledgeable on this subject. We would like them to research the Constitution. We would like them to search their conscience, and we would like them to communicate with their legislators so that we have the advantage of an input from our constituents when we come to the point that we make a decision whether or not we are going to offer legislation and the kind of legislation that we are going to offer. There is, apart from the legal arguments here, the recognition that here we have a brave young man, who has been twice decorated, once for saving the life of one of his fellows, and secondly for saving the eyesight of another. He is a medic, by the way. And he has now taken a position of conscience. In an America where increasingly anything goes and where we are more appalled each day by the kind of fare that we get over our radios and our televisions, we ought to stand up and applaud a young man who at great risk to his future takes a courageous position like this. However this comes out, and I have to believe that not only is Specialist New going to be exonerated but that we are going to have the opportunity to enact some very important legislation that will define the roles of the Congress and the President so we do not have the kinds of misunderstandings that have come up not just during this administration but previous administrations as well, but whatever happens in this, I think that we need to remember that this is a brave young man who has taken a position of conscience. Mr. Speaker, how many of us would have had the same kind of courage to risk a bright future by taking a position of conscience like this? He could have rationalized it: This is somebody else's problem. I am just a lowly specialist. I do not need to take, to dig my heels in and take this position. He did not do that. He did what I hope more and more of us across the country do every day. That is to recognize that we have a responsibility. Let me read again, let me read again from the Army field manual. I will close with this because I think this speaks the minds and the hearts of most of our people: Moral courage is as important as physical courage. Do not ease the way for others to do wrong. Stand up for your beliefs and what you know is right. America, we need more of this. Do not compromise your professional ethics or your individual values and moral principles. If you believe you are right after sober and considered judgment, hold your position. Mr. Speaker, this was not only great advice for Specialist New and every other brave young person who has volunteered for our military, it is also great advice for all the rest of us. My hat is off to Specialist New and his position of courage. I hope that everyone out there will become better informed about this and will convey to their Representatives what they would like them to do in solving the problems that have been brought up by this very special case of Specialist New.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for using my language of H.R. 698 as the basis of this good bill. This legislation reaffirms our commitment to defend the Constitution and it also includes enhanced penalties for criminal use of a gun in Federal crimes. This legislation does what the original gun ban legislation could never have done: It fights crime.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Law enforcement, really, experts.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that my colleagues have made an overemphasis of the exploration of episodes like Ruby Ridge and Waco. The real intent of this is, as I stated, to reinstill public confidence in our Federal law enforcement agencies. I would point out to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] that this is apparently also the dream of the ACLU, because they have endorsed this amendment. LEAA and ACLU have both endorsed this amendment. So it has very broad support from the public community. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. This amendment is a very simple amendment. What it does is to set up a blue-ribbon commission that will function for 2 years. The commission will have responsibility to look over our Federal law enforcement agencies and to make recommendations relative to their charter as to how they operate and as to how they can better function so that we can again achieve the high level of public confidence in our Federal law enforcement agencies that is necessary for them to act efficiently and effectively. As you know, there have been some incidents, like Waco and Ruby Ridge, that have caused a great number of our constituents to lose confidence in our Federal law enforcement agencies. We have many brave people in these law enforcement agencies that every day put their life on the line. It is unfair to ask them to function in an environment in which far too many of our people lack the kind of confidence that they should have in our Federal law enforcement agencies and in the individuals who work there. It is the intent of this amendment that we will, as a result of their findings and their recommendations, reestablish, reestablish confidence in our Federal law enforcement agencies so that they can be more effective in their work.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barr amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell the Members that our original antiterrorism bill was terrorizing the good constituents of our district. I have had numerous calls from them. They were genuinely concerned, and I think rightfully so, about the possibility of infringing on their constitutional rights. Mr. Chairman, I hold here the primary reason I am supporting this amendment. That is because I believe that without this amendment, the original bill seriously threatens some very important constitutional rights. We have to have a proper balance here. If I am going to err, I am going to err on the side of supporting the Constitution. I took an oath to do that when I came here. I am going to vote for this amendment, and if it passes, and if my amendment which I will offer passes, I will vote for the bill. I did not think we could make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Our Congressman did that. I think him very much for his diligent efforts.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Yes, I would. I think that we have a major----

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Speaker, minority leader, there would be five, and they are all designated by individuals like that, bipartisan.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I cannot designate who would be appointed by those who have the responsibility of making the appointment under this.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, law enforcement experts. Law enforcement experts.

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

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

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me in saluting the contributions of engineers to America. Last week was National Engineers Week celebrated annually since 1951. The timing recognizes the role played by our first President, George Washington. Washington's education and experience as a land surveyor and promoter of invention, education, and the construction of roads, canals, docks, and ports earned him the recognition as our Nation's first engineer. February is also Black History Month and African-American engineers invented some of our most important and best-known inventions including: blood banks, the four-way traffic signal, and potato chips. Engineering is our Nation's second largest profession with more than 1.8 million working engineers according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Every day, engineers are creating new ways to use technology to improve our quality of life. The contributions of engineers surround us and are so pervasive that we sometimes take them for granted. National Engineers Week offers us the opportunity to stop, take notice, give thanks for the work of engineers, and encourage our young people to study science and math and consider engineering as a career. Engineers build a better future every day.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, no one gives an upbeat speech better than our President. Analyst Kevin Phillips described the President as a chameleon because of his extraordinary ability to delivery a conservative message that masks his liberal government agenda. For instance, in his State of the Union Message, our President twice told Americans that the era of big government is over. However, in the same State of the Union Message, the President twice told Americans that we cannot fend for ourselves. Which is it, Mr. President? Liberals believe that Americans can't fend for ourselves. That's why liberals built up the monstrous Federal Government in Washington over the last 30 years. Americans want the Government off our backs. Mr. Speaker, if the President is really serious about ending the era of big government, why did he propose to expand or create no less than six new Federal Government programs in his State of the Union? Actions speak louder than words.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, last night our President spoke to all Americans about the challenges facing us. The President challenged Congress to help him produce a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. The President told Americans that the era of big government is over. The President challenged Congress to balance the budget, reform welfare, reduce teen pregnancy, to provide a tax credit for children, and to preserve Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the President's actions speak louder than his words. I am reminded of a colloquialism, ``Been there, done that.'' Congress already passed legislation to balance the budget, reform welfare, reduce teen pregnancy, provide a tax credit for children, and preserve Medicare. The President's response? He vetoed them, all of them. This President will say anything, but he obviously has trouble performing.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on National Security who has worked hard all year on this bill, today is a very difficult day for me. It is with great sadness that I rise with great concern for this rule and this conference report. The conference report we will vote on today is very similar to the one vetoed by President Clinton in late December with some notable exceptions. Several controversial sections have been removed. Although I disagree, I might have supported this report without the missile defense language and funding for the President's peacekeeping misadventures, and we might have argued those another day. However, the conference agreed to drop a section of the bill that restricted the President's ability to place American troops under U.N. command. How ironic that today we will vote on this bill when just this morning a military court in Germany court-martialed Army Specialist Michael New, an American hero who refused to wear a uniform that signified allegiance to a foreign government, and dishonorably discharged him. Had this section been included in last year's bill, Michael New would be a decorated soldier today who would be proudly serving his country. We have overwhelmingly voted this in the past. I hope this rule is defeated and we have a bill that America can be proud of and we can vote for.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as a candidate for President 4 years ago, Bill Clinton said that he would ``end welfare as we know it.'' Earlier this month, President Clinton vetoed a welfare bill that would have done exactly what candidate Clinton had promised. Let us review some of the facts. Almost $5 trillion has been spent on the welfare state since LBJ launched the war on poverty. Over half of the individuals receiving AFDC remain dependent on welfare for 10 or more years. In 1973, the illegitimacy rate for AFDC mothers was 32 percent. Today, it is over 50 percent. Mr. Speaker, the welfare state has become a system that encourages family breakdown and government dependence. It fails to hold absentee fathers accountable and traps young people in poverty. When given a chance to change this destructive system, Bill Clinton again proved that he is a say anything, do nothing liberal President.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the comments of Grandfather Dornan from California, and I thought it might be appropriate for Grandfather Bartlett to make a comment or two. My friend from California is exactly right, that is what this debate is about. I have 10 children, and we now have 10 grandchildren, and will have several more. Ten years from now, as America looks back at this time, almost nobody will remember that we had a partial government shutdown, but everybody in America is going to remember whether or not we balanced this budget. This is what it is all about, balancing the budget. The measure before us now is a procedural mechanism to expedite this process. America wants us to balance the budget in overwhelming majority. Let us pass this and get on with the process.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I entered politics because I thought I could make a difference. As a Republican, as a proponent of a balanced budget, and as a Member of the 104th Congress, I truly feel that I have, in a small way, made a positive difference. I am very confident that in the coming days America will have a balanced budget-- something the American people have demanded for many, many years. Now, let me say that I truly feel sorry for those who are unfairly caught up in the middle of this partial Government shutdown. But, let me also add that I would feel even more shame and sorrow if we failed to discipline our Government. We must, as a government, as leaders, think of the future and think also of our children. We must balance the budget and restore the ethic of living within our means. This 104th Congress has made a difference and we will balance the budget.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I did not come to the Congress until I was 66 years old. There is some advantage in coming here at that age. If you come here younger, if you have spent much of your life here, I think that you miss some opportunities, some insights into relevance, time and perspective and things like the tyranny of the urgent. Let me give my colleagues two examples from my past. I had the great privilege of working for 18 years in several different capacities for the military. In one of those capacities, I was working, for part of my time at least, out of the Navy Yard in Philadelphia. There we had the responsibility for two things: One was for supporting the fleet. When they had problems with their life support equipment, with oxygen equipment and so forth, we had to go out to make sure that those problems were fixed. We also had the opportunity, the responsibility there for developing new equipment that would be better, that would have less problems, and we would have to spend less of our time going out to support the fleet. This was an excellent example of the tyranny of the urgent. When we had a call from the fleet that was an urgent problem and we had to go out to address it, the really important thing that that facility was charged with doing was developing new equipment so we would not have those problems in the future. But the tyranny of the urgent frequently got in the way of developing the new equipment. In 1954, in another experience, I was coming back from California from teaching medical school there to teach medical school here in Howard University. I was in the middle of Missouri with my family with young children and a 1941 Cadillac and a big trailer on the back that had in it all of my worldly possessions. A tire blew out on the Cadillac and the trailer turned over. I stood on the road there in the summertime in the hot sun in Missouri, and I thought, gee, if you put yourself 10 years in the future from this and look back, this is not going to be a big deal. It was not. I did step back, and really, as I look back on it now, it was not a big deal. Let me apply these two things to our partial shutdown of Government now. We must be very careful that we do not permit the urgent to take precedence over the important. The really important thing now is that we balance this budget. We have an urgent problem with a partial shutdown of Government. There has been enough talk from both sides as to how we got there from my perspective and I think the perspective of most Americans, the President has failed to keep his promise to submit a balanced budget. You cannot negotiate, you cannot negotiate when there is only one budget to negotiate. He needs to submit a balanced budget. The urgent thing is somehow to get around this problem, but the way to get around that is not to have another continuing resolution that is going to take the pressure off to do the important thing. And the important thing is to balance this budget. I was talking about the time and perspective. If we put ourselves down the road 10 years from now and look back, nobody hardly is going to remember this partial shutdown of government. But they are going to remember and they are going to thank us for holding tough and balancing the budget. We must be very sure that we have a perspective of the relevance of what we are doing. We must make very sure that we do not permit the tyranny of the urgent over the important. Our constituents understand that. I had a letter during our first brief partial shutdown. It was the kind of letter that just about brought tears to your eye. It was a Federal worker who said he did not know he was going to get paid when he was furloughed. He said he was probably going to lose $500. But that was a small enough price to pay for what this balanced budget would do for his children and his grandchildren. Here I have some constituent opinions from phone calls from five of our constituents. We have had many, many like this. This one is from Hagerstown, MD, the Federal employee who was furloughed, but he thinks that I should stick with the Republican plan to balance the budget. Here is another one. These are parents of, and these are from Flintstone, way out in western Maryland. They are parents of five children and grandparents of 11, and he is disabled, but they want the Congressman, their Congressman, to vote only on a balanced budget. They are proud of what we are doing for them here. They want me to hang tough. Here is one from New Market, MD. Keep the Government closed. This is a Federal worker with 22 years of experience in the Federal Government. He says, ``Don't buckle, stand fast.'' Here is another one from Ellicott City, just south of Baltimore, just north of here, a furloughed Federal District employee. He wants the RGB to stay the course. Another who congratulates on our budget stand: Do not support a continuing resolution. Our people understand better than we do the real important thing here and the relevance of what we are doing. They want us to stand firm, stay the course, balance the budget.