Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, recognizing the contribution and sacrifice of our brave astronauts is certainly reason enough to support this resolution, but there may be a justification which is equally important.

For a number of years now, decreasing numbers of our young people have aspired to careers in science, math, and engineering. This puts us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Indeed, many of our companies in this country must solicit overseas for workers in these technical areas because we simply are not turning out enough in this country.

For the short term, this is a threat to our economic superiority. We will not continue to be the world's premier economic power if we do not turn out scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in adequate numbers. For the longer term, it is a threat to our national security. Our military prowess is now the envy of the world. That cannot continue to be so for the future if we do not turn out well-trained scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in large enough numbers.

Hopefully, as young people come to this learning center, they will be inspired once again to pursue careers in science, math, and engineering. This will be good for them. It will certainly be good for our country.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes marriage. In the Christian community, and we are a Christian Nation, you can affirm that by going back to our Founding Fathers and their belief in how we started, among Christians, marriage is generally recognized as having started in the Garden of Eden. You may go back to Genesis to find that and you will note there that God created Adam and Eve. He did not create Adam and Steve. A union between other than a man and a woman may be something legally, but it just cannot be a marriage, because marriage through 5,000 years of recorded history has always been a relationship between a man and a woman.

More than just Christian societies have marriage. And why would every recorded society through 5,000 years of recorded history, why would they all have marriage as a union between a man and a woman? It is because societies, one and all, have recognized that marriage is a very important institution. And why is it important? It is because the usual product of marriage is children. And the state, or the tribe or whatever the organization is, all through history recognized that there is a responsibility for the assurance that the children brought into the world as a result of marriage are going to be cared for, which is why all of these societies have recognized that children should not be born out of that relationship, and that relationship is fundamentally there to make sure that their society is going to be perpetuated because children are going to be cared for, if not by the parents, then by the society that has recognized this relationship.

I think that a society is at risk when the institution of marriage, so fundamental to the stability of society, is put at risk.

So I am in strong support of this rule and the bill that follows.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that I had mentioned that not only Christian nations but every society through 5,000 years of recorded history has recognized the institution of marriage as being essential to the stability of their society. We are a Christian society, but I recognize that every other society, no matter what their origin, has certified that marriage is important to the stability of their society. It is to ours. It was to theirs.

I support the rule, and I support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, we lost about 3,000 people on 9/11. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, how long it took for cigarettes to kill 3,000 people? It took a bit less than 3 days. The loss of those 3,000 people on 9/11 changed our world, and yet, today, more than 3,000 young people will start smoking cigarettes, and more than 1,000 of them will die prematurely.

Where is the outrage? I cannot yell ``fire, fire,'' in a crowded theater, because the logic is that somebody might get hurt trying to get out of the theater.

Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, does it make any sense that I cannot yell ``fire, fire,'' in a crowded theater, but we can advertise cigarettes in such enticing ways that 3,000 young people will start smoking today?

I contend that somebody from another planet who is coming here in a UFO might not want to land until they learned more about a society that totally changes its world when 3,000 people die, but they do not seem to care when, the last year for which I saw data, 472,000 people died from smoking cigarettes.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to spend $10 billion, I would be happy to spend $12 billion productively to do something about cigarette smoking and the scourge to our country.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you know or not, but smoking cigarettes kills more people, is a bigger health problem than addiction to all other habit-forming drugs combined. Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of proportion?

I would be happy to spend $12 billion if it would do good, if it would reduce some of those more than 1,000 young people out of those 3,000 that will start smoking today that are going to die prematurely from smoking cigarettes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment sends the right message. Let us vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of basic and applied research is priceless. Most Federal Government R&D is by the military with a current goal for basic research of 3 percent of the DOD budget.

The National Science Foundation supports nearly 50 percent of the nonmedical basic research at our colleges and universities, including the University of Maryland, which comprises only 4 percent of Federal R&D spending.

Federal Government military R&D spending peaked in 1962 and declined beginning in 1965 until President Reagan's first term, during which R&D rose and surpassed 1962 levels and peaked in 1987. It then declined in 1993.

Beginning in fiscal year 1996, bipartisan support in the Congress supported increases in R&D above administration requests. Beginning in 2000 the downward trend was reversed. President Bush's increases have been increased further with bipartisan support.

The United States spends a smaller percentage of our GDP on R&D than any other major industrial power. That is the exact equivalent of a farmer eating his seed corn. Tomorrow's innovations come from today's R&D. America will remain the world's premiere military and economic leader only if we increase our spending on R&D.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, as chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee, I believe it appropriate to first underscore the magnificent service rendered the Nation by the men and women serving in our Armed Forces around the world. We have called upon them and continue to call upon them to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice in their service to the Nation. They continue to meet every challenge with true dedication and commitment. We thank each and every one of them for their service, and we thank all Americans for their unwavering support of our servicemen and women.

History has repeatedly taught us that peace is only achieved through strength. We have sought to apply the lessons learned from the ongoing war on terrorism and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to the committee markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in order to strengthen our Armed Forces.

Oceans cover three-fourths of the Earth's surface. The vast majority of the world's population lives within 2 miles of a seacoast. Seventy percent of our trade moves by sea. Clearly, maintaining America's naval superiority is an imperative, not an option.

I am pleased to report that the National Defense Authorization Act that we will consider increases the requested authorization for Department of Defense programs within the jurisdiction of the Projection Forces Subcommittee by $890 million; $296 million of the additional authorization is for programs on the military service chiefs' unfunded requirements list.

Authorization is included for the administration's request of one Virginia Class submarine, three DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17 amphibious assault ship, and two cargo and ammunition ships.

We have also taken several initiatives to begin to address shortfalls in important requirements of the Department of Defense. All of these programs are viewed as critical enablers for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These programs include $150 million additional authorization to begin development of the amphibious assault ship replacement; $96 million as the fiscal year 2005 increment to begin the regeneration process to restore 10 additional B-1s to combat-ready condition; $98 million to upgrade the fleet of B-2 bombers; $100 million to continue a next- generation bomber program to replace the now 42-year-old B-52 bomber fleet; $95 million to begin the recapitalization of the Air Force's aging aerial refueling tanker fleet; and $23 million to complete development and evaluation of the Affordable Weapon System, a low-cost cruise missile that is the successful result of an Office of Naval Research advanced technology initiative to demonstrate the ability to design, develop, and build a capable and affordable precision-guided weapons system at a cost that would be an order of magnitude cheaper than comparable weapons systems; and increased authorization for several procurement and research and development programs of the services.

In addition, the recommended mark includes important legislative proposals: to accelerate the DDG-51 Aegis guided missile destroyer modernization program; and to establish an independent body of manufacturing experts to find ways to again make the United States shipbuilding industry competitive. Ad hoc government policy and business management adjustments to reductions in the fleet from 600 to less than 300 are not adequate or acceptable to make the necessary short-term and long-term decisions to maintain the capacity and capability of this critical and complex industrial base. Once lost, that industrial base cannot be easily reconstituted.

This study will rigorously analyze all of the relevant factors and make recommendations to ensure the capability of America's shipyards to build the ships for our Navy and to be competitive against other shipyards in the global marketplace.

While there is much more to do, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 is an important step in making our country more secure. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the ranking member of our subcommittee, for his extraordinary partnership, dedication, and support in completing this bill. I would like to thank all of my other colleagues on the subcommittee for their diligence, commitment, and hard work.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), our chairman, for his leadership; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member.

In conclusion, I would especially like to thank and recognize the contributions of the many staff members for their invaluable assistance in preparing H.R. 4200.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying respect to one of my constituents, Lieutenant Commander Daniel Pettigrew, U.S. Navy, retired, of Middletown, Maryland, who passed away on Wednesday, April 21. Dan Pettigrew was a 26-year Navy veteran, retiring in 1974. He served his country with distinction, and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the National Navy Achievement Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, the Navy Unit Commendation, and the Navy Marine Corps Medal.

Dan was as member of Middletown United Methodist Church; VFW Post 3285 John R. Webb, Frederick; Masonic Lodge AF&AM in Massachusetts. He also served as a national legislative director for the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees. In his role at the USDR, he worked tirelessly on the issues of concurrent receipt, veterans health care, and VA disability compensation.

Dan's last 6 years were spent walking the halls of Congress bringing the message about the needs of military retirees, veterans, and their families across the Nation. Please join me in remembering Dan and his valiant causes that he supported so diligently for our veterans, military retirees, and their families.

Mr. Speaker, this Earth Day I want to recognize a company from my district that is making a product people want and is beneficial for the environment.

NaturaLawn is a business located in downtown Frederick, Maryland. Starting small in 1987, they have grown to become the fourth largest lawn care service provider in the United States, generating in excess of $24 million.

NaturaLawn identified a product that would have popular appeal, an organic-based fertilization program that uses naturally based ingredients as opposed to traditional chemical fertilizers. This product is environmentally friendly and provides a desired product. The company has created many franchises across the Nation.

All of these great things were done privately in our free enterprise system of Congress. No governmental regulations or mandates caused this business

to exist, simply good sense, hard work, and a desire to create products for people who want to purchase environmentally friendly services for their lives.

Congratulations to this innovative company for its success in helping create jobs and protect the environment through private enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a moment talking about the debt and some terminology that we use. I suspect there is not one person in 100 outside the beltway, and maybe not many more than that inside the beltway, that knows that the public debt and the national debt are not the same thing. For about 4 years we were telling the American people that we were paying down the public debt. That was true. The implication was that we were paying down the debt which the government owes and that was not true. Let me explain why that was not true.

The total debt that we owe is called the national debt, and that is made up of two subparts. One of those subparts is the public debt, and the other subpart is the trust fund debt. The public debt is the Wall Street debt. And the lockboxes we had on Social Security and Medicare, and these lockboxes did nothing to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, they are totally unrelated to the future of these two funds, what the lockbox said was if we had a surplus, and we did and do for the moment in those two, that we cannot use that surplus for ordinary spending. We have to use it to pay down the debt. The debt that we pay down with that is the public debt. But for every dollar that we pay down the public debt, the trust fund debt goes up a dollar, and the total of those two debts, which is the national debt, does not change at all; but there are 50-some trust funds and only two of them had a lockbox or have a lockbox now.

So we took the surpluses, and there are surpluses in others, like the civil service retirement and railroad retirement and transportation trust fund and there are surpluses in some of those, and so we happily took those surpluses and spent them.

That is true. I checked with GAO, and they told me that although there were 14 months during those four periods when revenues exceeded expenditures, if we kept our books on an accrual basis, like we force every business that handles more than a million dollars a year to do, there never was a moment in time when the debt went down. What that meant, of course, was that we were getting ever closer and closer to the debt limit ceiling. I kept teasing Members by quoting the Bible, ``Surely your sin will find you out.'' What are you going to tell the American people when we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling limit when we have been telling them all this time that we are paying down the debt?

As a matter of fact, we had to do that in a very interesting evening. We debated until about midnight. We debated for hours. We were being harangued, how could you be so irresponsible? How could you run up the deficit and the debt? At midnight we recessed and we convened the Committee on Rules. They came out with a rule about 1 a.m. that said we were going to debate the rule for 1 hour and then go immediately to a vote on the bill. So we did that, and we raised the debt limit ceiling.

As Members know, because we were embarrassed by that, we decided we would not want to do that again in the future. So what we did, without my vote and against my wishes, we voted the Gephardt amendment.

What we did was to incorporate the Gephardt amendment, which said whenever we

pass a budget resolution that the debt limit ceiling would be raised whatever it needs to be raised to accommodate the spending anticipated by the budget resolution. But budget resolutions do not include emergency supplementals, and we keep voting emergency supplementals because we do not want the budget resolution to be such a high number.

In the future, there will be another debate on raising the American debt limit ceiling, and I hope America is listening when we do that. What we are doing is amassing the largest intergenerational debt transfer in the history of the world. We cannot run our government on current revenue, and so what we are doing is systematically borrowing from our kids' and grandkids' future. When I ran for Congress 12 years ago, I promised those who I hoped to be my constituents, and they are my constituents now, that I would try to conduct myself here so my kids and grandkids would not spit on my grave because of what I have done to their country. I am still trying to do that.

I think it is unconscionable for us to amass this larger and larger debt that we are going to pass on to our kids and grandkids.

What we are doing is systematically borrowing from our kids' and grandkids' future. We cannot run our government on current revenue, so what we are doing is borrowing from their future. When it comes their turn to run the government, not only will they have to run it on current revenues, but they will also have to pay back all of the moneys we borrowed from their generation.

We have a systemic problem here, and that is by law the only place we can invest these surpluses is in nonnegotiable U.S. securities. These surpluses are the order of magnitude of about $200 billion a year, more or less. The only place we can invest them is in nonnegotiable U.S. securities. There is no money laying around Washington we have not spent. As a general rule, government spends all of the money you give it plus as much more as it can get away with. This government is no different.

I think it is important for our people, our kids and grandkids, to understand what we are doing. The reason I am so concerned about this fact that we are hiding some of the deficit is that it is obscuring the magnitude of the problem. I think the American people want us to balance the budget, and I think they want us to do it honestly.

Last year we were told that the deficit was about $500 billion, but the debt went up $700 billion. That is because the $200 billion in Social Security surplus and Medicare surplus that we took and spent is not called deficit, but it does represent debt.

I would hope, because we cannot continue to amass this ever-increasing debt. As the gentleman stated, interest rates are now very low, and still interest on the debt is a meaningful percentage of the largest item in our budget, which is defense. When interest rates go back to normal levels, the interest on the debt will be just about as much as we are spending on defense.

By the way, the interest on the debt is part of what we call mandatory spending. Our total expenditures this year will be about $2.4 trillion. We will vote on about one-third of that, about $800 billion, and about half of that will be defense. Defense is running roughly half of our total discretionary spending. This mandatory spending is kind of hidden, but it represents two-thirds of all of the money that we spend.

Mr. Speaker, a bit more than half of all the expense budget is salaries, and we now do not have enough military personnel, who are having to extend their tours. They have been on the ground over there, reservists on the ground for a year, and now they are being extended for 3 or 4 months. So obviously unless we are going to have fewer people in the military, we are not going to be able to cut defense spending.

So the gentleman is right. In a sense a lot of that is mandatory because we cannot imagine a smaller military because our present military is really not large enough to do what we are now attempting to do because we are having to extend reservists who have already been there a year.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get back to constitutional government. Thomas Jefferson said, The government which governs best is the government which governs least. Now we are a million miles from his dream of what his country would be at this time in history. And we need to look at our Constitution at what our Founding Fathers believed the Federal Government ought to be doing.

And there are several things that we spend a lot of money on, and I will challenge my colleagues to go to Article I, Section 8, and that is the part of the Constitution that delineates the appropriate functions, the allowable functions of the Federal Government, and find any justification for philanthropy. I really believe in philanthropy, but they did not believe it was the proper function of the Federal Government. We will see no hint there that we should be involved in health care other than the health care of our military people. We are responsible for them. We will find absolutely no hint that we should be involved in education. As a matter of fact, for the 24 straight years when the SAT scores were falling lower and lower and lower in our schools, the Federal Department of Education was getting better, bigger and bigger and bigger, and exerting more control over education. We contribute about 6 percent, 5.9 I think is the actual number, percent of the funds for education. We would like to have 100 percent of control. We just need to get back to constitutional government.

Our Founding Fathers believed that States do some things better, many things better, than the Federal Government. They believed that the private sector did most things better than government. And what we are now trying to do is to have government do more and more of what our Founding Fathers thought that the private sector ought to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers not only did not permit personal income tax in the Constitution, they prohibited it with the original Constitution. So to get a personal income tax, we had to amend the Constitution.

The numbers that the gentleman mentioned are very interesting. The lower 50 percent of taxpayers pay 4 percent of our taxes. The upper 50 percent of taxpayers pay, I think, 96 percent of our taxes. And the top 1 percent of taxpayers, I think, pay 34 percent of our taxes. So if we are going to give a tax cut to people who pay taxes, people who pay taxes are going to get a tax cut. And since 34 percent of the taxes are paid by the top 1 percent of wage earners, and the top 50 percent of wage earners pay 96 percent of the taxes, clearly those who earn money are going to get a tax cut because they are the ones who pay taxes.

Mr. Speaker, in a former life I was a small businessman, and I would like to make the argument for a moment that it is impossible to tax business. A tax on a business simply becomes a part of the cost of doing business. If they are going to stay in business, they have to pass that cost on to the consumers, to their customers, which makes a tax on business the most regressive tax we have because the poorest of the poor pay more for everything they get, more for their food, more for their clothing, more for everything they get, all goods and services, because these companies are taxed. So the poor are hurt, first of all, because everything they buy costs more because we are taxing businesses. And, secondly, they are hurt because the tax on business, as the gentleman pointed out, makes them less competitive in a global marketplace. So finally they become noncompetitive, and the job disappears here and appears somewhere on the Pacific Rim. So the poor person who had to pay, to begin with, more for the things he bought now does not even have a job to earn the money to buy the goods. So it is a doubly regressive tax.

My liberal friends, when we talk about this, seem to understand it for about 5 minutes, but 10 minutes later they are saying, those rich businesses, we really need to tax them. But in the final analysis we cannot tax a business. It simply becomes a part of the cost of doing business, and they pass that tax on to their consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two ways that we can discipline ourselves. The first is that we need to understand that it is unconscionable to amass an ever larger and larger debt that we are going to pass on to our kids and our grandkids.

By the way, the gentleman was talking about Social Security earlier. A recent poll of young people believe more that they would see a UFO than believe they would ever see a Social Security check. So this is not a big vote of confidence in our system.

I think there are a couple of things that we need to do to curb spending. One is to recognize how unconscionable it is to continue to amass a larger and larger debt we are going to pass on to our kids and our grandkids. And the second thing is we need to go back to the Constitution. We would not have any problem in spending if we would just stop the spending on things that are unconstitutional.

There was a very interesting speech that Davy Crockett gave in the Congress. There was a fire, when he was here in Congress, over in Georgetown, and they could see the buildings burning over there, and there were a number of people who were burned out of their homes, and one of them was a widow woman for whom everybody felt sorry. So a couple of days later, the Congress voted $20,000, which is not much today, it was a whole lot more money then, $20,000 to help the victims of this fire.

Davy Crockett was campaigning a bit after that, and there was a farmer in a field who came to the end with his horses and stopped them, and he told Davy Crockett, I have always voted for you in the past, but I cannot vote for you anymore. And Davy Crockett asked, Why can you not vote for me? So he reminded him of this fire. He reminded him of what they had voted. And he said, Sir, that was not your money. That was my money. Philanthropy is not a proper function of the Federal Government. I cannot vote for you anymore.

Davy Crockett came back and gave a speech, and I am sure people can find it if they go on the Web and click on Davy Crockett. They can find his speech there. This was a great speech. It points out that no matter how philanthropic that is, that that is not a proper function of the Federal Government.

As a matter of fact, the Bible says, ``It is more blessed to give than to receive.'' Does the gentleman from Michigan know a single person who has a good warm feeling on April 15 because so much of their money is going to philanthropy? Has not the government usurped the role of philanthropist and denied our citizens the reward that the Bible promises, that it is more blessed to give than to receive? A whole bunch of the money that the

government forcibly takes from us on April 15 goes to philanthropy, a totally inappropriate function of the Federal Government, a constitutionally denied function of the Federal Government. And because they thought that we might not understand, 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, they ratified the first 10 amendments, the tenth of which, the most violated amendment in the Constitution, the tenth of which says it in everyday English, and we cannot find it in Article I, Section 8. The three things I mentioned I cannot find there. And I defy anybody to take out their Constitution and find it.

I always have a Constitution next to my heart.

Mr. Speaker, I object to calling this Social Security because it is clearly not Social Security. If that is all one has at their retirement, they are in a world of pain and hurt. If we look at those dollars over there, we see that on many pay stubs the FICA tax is the biggest tax that we pay. That worker has every right to believe that since it is called Social Security, because it is the biggest tax item on his pay stub, that it is Social Security. So he is not doing what he ought to be doing, saving providently for his retirement.

We need to change the name of that. It is not Social Security. It never was Social Security. It never was intended to be Social Security. But the tax has gotten so large, and it has gotten large because originally there were 42 people working for every 1 on Social Security. Today it is three people working for every one on Social Security. Shortly it will be two people. That is a pretty heavy burden to carry, two people supporting one. That is why the trust fund will be depleted.

We will be able to meet only 70 percent of the demands on Social Security.

$7 trillion is a very big debt, but I would like to talk for a moment about the debt.

If we kept our books like we force companies to keep their books, and some people say that we keep Enron-type of books, if we had to count as debt the contingent liabilities, our debt would not be the $7 trillion. It would be, I am told, between $25 trillion and $30 trillion, and some people think as much as $60 trillion.

I think that we need to keep the kind of books that we require businesses to keep. I think the American people have a right to know what the debt is that totally they owe. If you divide this by the number of working families, I think it is, what, about $10,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

That is about $10,000 per family. Just paying interest, by the way, the first thing that comes out of your paycheck is interest on the debt. Before you can do anything, before you can build roads or fund your schools or do anything, you have got to pay interest on the debt. So it comes right off the top. Every year we do not balance the budget makes it that much harder to balance the budget next year, because we have a larger interest debt to pay.

By the way, in our fondest dreams today, in 4 or 5 years we are going to cut the deficits in half? That will not get us there, will it?

The gentleman mentioned the family as an analogy of our country. In a 4-year period, we went from being the world's largest creditor Nation to being the world's largest debtor Nation. I saw a fascinating editorial that said, gee, is that not great? Look how credit-worthy we are.

I related that to my family. I said, gee, if last year I had $10,000 and this year I owe $10,000, I am having some trouble figuring out that I am better this year than I was last year.

That is what this editorial was saying: Is it not nice that we are so credit-worthy that we now are the world's largest debtor Nation? We in 4 years, we went from the world's largest creditor Nation to the world's largest debtor Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and to oppose the Democratic amendment.

H.R. 1997 would state that when a violent criminal act is committed against a pregnant woman, and that act results in the death of the baby, the criminal will be guilty of a second offense.

What this debate comes down to is personhood, according to a well- known liberal activist group. People for the American Way, a group opposing this bill, stated, ``Unlike the underlying bill, however, the pro-choice Lofgren substitute would not threaten Roe by recognizing the embryo or fetus as a separate, legal `person.' '' That is correct. Today in the House, we declare that criminal acts committed against pregnant mothers are crimes against two persons. What else could it be?

Human beings take different forms throughout life, but they never lose their humanness, their humanity. A baby in the womb will be born a person. A newborn, although it cannot fend for itself, is a person. An 87-year-old that shuffles slowly along is still a person.

Mr. Speaker, when there are two victims, there should be two crimes. I urge the House to pass H.R. 1997.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the proposed amendment because it would clearly violate the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion under our Constitution. This amendment would tell faith-based organizations that they must hire people who do not share their faith and beliefs. This is not the case with other organizations and other deeply held beliefs.

Planned Parenthood receives millions of Federal dollars, but there is no requirement that they hire people who believe in the sanctity of life. Planned Parenthood takes belief into account when hiring, but this is not condemned nor forbidden by the government as unlawful discrimination.

Members of the Congress hire staff based upon competence and beliefs. A major factor in our hiring decisions is whether applicants believe in the same things as we; if we have similar political philosophies, similar ideas about the role of government and what public policies will strengthen our country. It would be ludicrous for someone to say to a Member of Congress that they could not ask a potential employee what their political views were or could not take that into hiring consideration.

Why apply a different standard to faith-based organizations? The government should not discriminate against religious groups that are delivering services to help the poor.

In defeating this amendment, we uphold the Constitution when it says that ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Yet, some argue that faith-based organizations cannot receive Federal dollars because that would be a violation

of the separation of church and State. May I remind everyone that the words ``separation of church and State'' are not in the Constitution of the United States. ``Separation of church and State'' was a part of the now defunct Soviet Union's Constitution, article 128, I believe. Even so, the Congress is not establishing a religion here. When money is given to diverse faith-based groups to help the poor, Congress is not declaring a national religion. The President has made this clear when he said ``faith-based programs should not be forced to change their character or compromise their mission.''

I urge the House to defeat this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, our Founding Fathers would be amazed that we were even discussing this. This Congress, for the first 100 years of our existence, voted money every year to send missionaries to the American Indians. The Continental Congress bought 20,000 volumes of the Bible, copies of the Bible to distribute to their new citizens. For the first 200 years the New England Primer taught the alphabet to our students by using Bible text. In the McGuffrey Reader, the author of that says that he borrowed more from scripture than any other source, and he made no apologies for that. Our Founding Fathers were devoutly Christian. They would be amazed that we are even discussing this. President Adams said that this Constitution was prepared for a Christian Nation which served the purposes of no other. Mr. Chairman, they would be amazed that we are even discussing this today.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces, I am pleased to highlight the issues within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee.

This conference report increases the requested authorization for programs within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces by $1.3 billion to $30 billion dollars. Authorization is included for the administration's request of one Virginia class submarine, 3 DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17 amphibious assault ship, and two cargo and ammunition ships.

Additional authorizations of $75 million for advance procurement of LPD-17 and $248 million for SSN refueling overhaul are also included. Our conference report addresses 100 aircraft KC-767 Air Force proposed lease program by restricting the lease portion of the program to 20 aircraft, requiring the Air Force budget to procure the remaining 80 aircraft. This approach will save the taxpayer at least $2 billion over the originally-proposed program.

We have also taken several initiatives to begin to address shortfalls in important requirements of the Department of Defense. An additional $20 million to sustain a force structure of 83 B-1's, 23 aircraft above the level planned; and an additional $208 million for Tomahawk missiles, an additional $40 million for the Affordable Weapon, an additional $100 million bomber R&D initiative for the next generation, follow-on stealth, deep strike bomber.

In addition, the recommended mark includes several important legislative proposals. First, a multi-year procurement authorization for several programs. Second, a limitation on C-5A aircraft requirement. Third, an electromagnetic gun initiative. Fourth, a requirement that the Secretary of Defense complete two independent studies on potential future fleet architectures for the Navy.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for all his support in completing in conference report. I would also like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their leadership, commitment and steadfastness in completing this process.

Mr. Speaker, on October 14, the Supreme

Court agreed to hear a dispute over the phrase ``one Nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Make no mistake, this lawsuit is another attempt by atheists to exterminate America's religious heritage. Michael Newdow is an atheist who wants the government to adopt his religious views. He argues that his daughter was, in legal terms, injured by having to be exposed to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The underlying idea behind Mr. Newdow's efforts was expressed perfectly by the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras. He said, ``Man is the measure of all things.'' What this statement means is that human beings, not a God or an unchanging moral law, is the ultimate source of value.

The Declaration of Independence tells us differently. The Declaration tells us exactly what the ultimate source of our laws and liberties are and where they came from. It reads that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is a central question in this controversy, whether or not public officials in the government itself can acknowledge a higher power than themselves. Can the government acknowledge God or must we agree that man is the measure of all things?

The background on this case is interesting. The child involved in the present suit is not required to recite the Pledge. Mr. Newdow argues that his daughter should not even have to listen to the Pledge. In the factual and procedural background section of Newdow v. U.S. Congress, Mr. Newdow argues his daughter is injured when she is compelled to watch and listen as her State-employed teacher in her State-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God and that ours is one Nation under that God. If Mr. Newdow's daughter is injured by listening to the pledge with the words ``under God'' in it, what about the other students? In the dissenting opinion of Newdow v. U.S., Circuit Judge Fernandez makes the point well.

He says:

I recognize that some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but then others might not feel good if they are omitted.

This application of logic to Newdow's argument proves that we need something more to shed light on the constitutionality of the phrase ``under God.'' We must also look to the history of the phrase itself. By doing so, we can shed light on the legitimacy of recognizing God in our government and in our laws.

To shed light on this controversy, it would be helpful to look at the history of the phrase ``under God'' and the words of the people who helped write our Constitution.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Massachusetts educator. Bellamy was planning celebrations to mark Columbus Day and the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America. The Pledge emphasized the permanence of union and the liberty of the people. The Pledge was written only 27 years after the Civil War. The 1892 version of the Pledge read, ``I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.''

Because of large numbers of immigrants, some thought the reference to ``my Flag'' might encourage immigrants to retain loyalty to their former country's flag. And so in 1924, the National Flag Conference approved a change in the Pledge. It now in 1924 read, ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.''

In 1942, Congress codified the pledge into law when it was added to the U.S. Flag Code. This version did not include the words ``under God.'' Again it read, ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.''

In 1954, Congress inserted the words ``under God'' into the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1943, Jehovah's Witnesses filed suit and challenged the mandatory recitation of the Pledge.

The Court ruled that governments should not force students to recite the pledge against their will or contrary to their beliefs. Judge Fernandez again from the dissenting opinion in Newdow v. Congress. In West Virginia Board of Education versus Barnett, for example, the Supreme Court did not say that the pledge could not be recited in the presence of Jehovah Witness children. It merely said that they did not have to recite it. That fully protected their constitutional rights by precluding the government from trenching upon the sphere of intellect and spirit. In the law they concluded the Pledge of Allegiance simply stated that standing was a sign of respect for the Nation and its laws. Public Law 396 states: ``However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the Pledge is given by merely standing at attention.''

In conclusion, students are not forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Reciting the Pledge in the presence of students who object to it does not violate the Constitution. Congress's addition of ``under God'' was only reference to God during that time. In 1955 by unanimous vote, Congress required the U.S. Mint to place the words ``In God We Trust'' on all of our currency. And over the Speaker's desk on that marble wall are the words ``In God We Trust.'' In 1956 Congress adopts ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto. Were these enactments by Congress isolated? Not at all. The Nation has long publicly declared its dependence on divine providence.

There are references to our dependence on God in earlier American history. Lincoln's consecration of the Gettysburg speech, in which he said: ``It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.''

What did Lincoln mean by saying ``this Nation under God''? That the United States is under the protection of God? That we are also under God's judgment, that we must conduct ourselves according to his standards of justice? Lincoln said in his second inaugural address: `` . . . and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those for whom the offense'' of slavery ``came.''

Lincoln, by declaring our Nation ``under God,'' seems to be echoing a man even closer to the writing of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson: ``And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and His justice cannot sleep forever . . . '' Thomas Jefferson's wisdom reinforces Mr. Lincoln's assertion stated earlier that the Civil War was divine judgment for slavery. In that sense America is a Nation under God.

Why was America being judged by God during the Civil War? Because slavery was a violation of the principle of equality proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Even though slavery was allowed in the Constitution, it was still a violation of another of Jefferson's principles. In his first inaugural address, Jefferson said: ``All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable.'' Was slavery reasonable? No, Jefferson said. ``All eyes are opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.''

Lincoln and Jefferson reinforced each other's arguments, that the United States is a Nation under God's judgment and protection, that our rights

come from God and that no violation of our God-given rights can be tolerated.

Can we go back further to see if God is mentioned in any other documents around the founding era? Yes. The Declaration of Independence. We teach the Declaration of Independence in our schools to advance freedom. John Adams said: ``Children should be educated and instructed to the principles of freedom.'' The Declaration also teaches us about Americans' beliefs about God. The Declaration teaches us four things about God: one, He is the author of the laws of nature and nature's God; two, he has endowed us with inalienable rights; three, He is the supreme judge of the world; and, four, he provides the protection of divine providence.

What happens when the Declaration of Independence is taught in public schools? Are they violating the separation of church and State? How preposterous. Do schools that teach the Declaration and its description of God violate the Constitution? The absurdity of the argument of atheists like Mr. Newdow is readily apparent. There are several implications in Mr. Newdow's argument, Mr. Speaker. If the Court rules the Pledge of Allegiance with the words ``under God'' unconstitutional next summer, what will be next? ``God bless America''? Mr. Speaker, what would happen if Congress required the recitation of the preamble to the Declaration every morning instead of the Pledge? The conclusion of the argument atheists make must be the Declaration of Independence violates the Constitution.

We have examined the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. We have examined the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We have looked at the history of the phrase ``under God.'' It is obvious that our government has long declared a dependence on God. Acknowledging God as a source of our inalienable rights is what makes our rights secure. Our history, our Declaration, our Constitution teach us several lessons: that God is the source of our rights, that our Nation is under God's judgment and we must act accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I am an elected official in the Federal legislature. I have mentioned God many times in this speech in the House of Representatives. I hope the Supreme Court will not rule I have violated the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, the words of the Constitution are very clear, but what is not clear is what our Founding Fathers meant by those words, and that is why the discussion today of whether the words ``under God'' are appropriate in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

What I would like to do is go back to our Founding Fathers to see what they might advise us could they be resurrected and meet with us today. If we put in the context of the time the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we may be better able to understand what they meant by their words. No one disagrees on what the words are, but there is a big disagreement on what the words mean.

Patrick Henry is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, and every student in school knows what he said: ``I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.'' But I will wager, Mr. Speaker, that if any of the listeners go to the textbooks in their school, they will find no reference to the context in which this statement was made. It was made in a church, St. Johns Church in Richmond on March 23, 1775, and here is more of that statement. He says: ``An appeal to arms and the God of Hosts is all that is left us, but we shall not fight our battle alone, there is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. That battle, sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.''

Do my colleagues think Patrick Henry would tell us that it is not okay to have the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag? Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, in 1776, he wrote this: ``It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.'' Do my colleagues think he would tell us that it is not okay to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Benjamin Franklin, who is frequently referred to by modern-day educators as a deist, that is, a person who believed that there was a God but don't bother praying to Him because He created us and set in place certain physical laws and our destiny is going to be determined by how we relate ourselves to those laws, let me read what Benjamin Franklin said, and then the Members conclude as to whether they think he was an atheist or not. These words were uttered in 1887 when he arose in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. They were deadlocked, and it was not certain we would have a Constitution. He was, I think, 82 years old, the Governor of Pennsylvania, I think the oldest and probably the most respected member of that convention, and this is what he said: ``In the days of our contest with Great Britain when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence, we owe this happy opportunity to establish our Nation. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?'' And then these words that I think are so powerful: ``I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that a new Nation can rise without His aid?'' And then he went on to say that he begged leave to move that henceforth they would begin each of their meetings with prayer. We still do that, Mr. Speaker. We began our session today with prayer.

Do my colleagues think Benjamin Franklin was a deist, and more importantly, do my colleagues think that he would say that it is not okay, that it is not appropriate to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

Thomas Jefferson, the major architect of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, also referred to frequently as a deist, and this is what he said: ``I am a real Christian. That is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator, and I hope to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.'' Do my colleagues think that Thomas Jefferson, with those convictions, would say that it is not okay to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

George Washington, our first President: ``It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all of the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge this supposition, that is, the notion or idea, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.''

In his prayer book, he wrote: ``O eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily frame me more and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear and dying in Thy favor, I may in Thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, 0 Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ.'' What counsel do my colleagues think George Washington would give us? Would he tell us that it is not okay, that it is not appropriate to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

John Adams, our second President, also President of the American Bible Society: ``We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' Could John Adams possibly have believed that we could not think

that ``under God'' is appropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag?

John Jay, our first Supreme Court Justice said: ``Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.'' Could John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice, have imagined that we would think it inappropriate to have ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

John Quincy Adams, President of the American Bible Society, and he said that his Presidency there he valued more than his Presidency of this country:

``The highest glory of the American Revolution was this. It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration,'' that is, the Declaration of Independence, ``they,'' the fathers, ``were bound by the laws of God, which they all acknowledged as their rules of conduct.''

What would John Quincy Adams advise us about the appropriateness of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

And later on in history, Calvin Coolidge, ``America seeks no empire built on blood and forces. She cherishes no purpose, save to merit the favor of almighty God.''

He later wrote, ``The foundations of our society and our government rests so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these doctrines would cease to be practically universal in our country.''

Would President Coolidge have believed it inappropriate to have ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

Let us turn now to our early Supreme Court. For 160 years, every Supreme Court decision in this arena was diametrically opposed to Supreme Court decisions from 1947 on.

In 1947, the Supreme Court did a radical about-face, repudiating the precedents of 160 years. They completely reversed their opinions.

The Supreme Court in 1811, People v. Ruggles, Ruggles had publicly slandered the Bible. This is what the Supreme Court said. ``You have attacked the Bible, and in attacking the Bible you attacked Jesus Christ. In attacking Jesus Christ, you have attacked the roots of our nation. Whatever strikes at the roots of Christianity manifests in the dissolving of our civil government.''

By the way, I would like to note that it might be appropriate in today's environment to use the words Judeo-Christian. Those words were apparently not used by our Founding Fathers, but I am sure recognizing the origin of all of these beliefs from the Bible, which is clearly Judeo-Christian, that Judeo-Christian might be a better way. But I am reading the actual words of our Founding Fathers. Please read Judeo- Christian when they say Christian.

``Why not use the Bible, especially the New Testament? It should be read and taught as the divine revelation in the schools.''

This was the comment of the Supreme Court relative to a case relative to a case, Veta v. Gerrand, where a woman teacher, a lady teacher, was not using the Bible to teach morality. I have no idea how this got to be a court case and got to the Supreme Court. But this is what they said in 1845. ``Why not use the Bible, especially the New Testament. It should be read and taught as the divine revelation in our schools. Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly and so perfectly as from the New Testament?''

Could this Supreme Court possibly have imagined that our court would be considering whether or not ``under God'' is appropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

In 1892, the Supreme Court said, and this was the Church of the Holy Spirit and they contended that Christianity was not the faith of the people. This is what the Supreme Court said. ``Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that they should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian. No purpose of action against our religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to this present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.''

Then the justices went on to cite 87 different legal precedents to affirm that America was formed as a Christian nation by believing Christians.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already noted, the Supreme Court in 1947, packed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt from seven to nine, completely repudiated 160 years of precedents when they declared there was a wall of separation between church and state. Those words do not appear in our Constitution, do not appear in the Declaration of Independence, and what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, is to determine what our Founding Fathers meant by that magnificent establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Let us move now to the Congress and see what the Congress of our forefathers might have advised us. March 27, 1854, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued a final report on a year study. Humanism and Darwinism was sweeping our country, and the Supreme Court commissioned a year study, and this is what was said in their final report.

``The First Amendment clause speaks against an establishment of religion. The Founding Fathers intended by this amendment to prohibit an establishment of religion such as the Church of England presented or anything like it, but they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us as an irreligious Nation.''

Then, I really love these words. Obviously they were not watching much television when they used this vocabulary. ``They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the Nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Had the people during the Revolution had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not just one sect. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Islam or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the Christian denominations to the exclusion of others. Christianity must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, without the firm belief that there is power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.''

Would that Congress have indicated that the words ``under God'' are inappropriate?

``In this age, there can be no substitute of Christianity. By its great principles, the Christian faith is the great conserving element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of our free institutions.''

This is, again, from the Congress.

``That was the religion of our Founding Fathers, of the Republic, and they expect it to remain the religion of their descendants.''

Let us look now at what was taught in our schools. By the way, before we leave the Congress, in 1854 there was a resolution, we pass many resolutions in our Congress, they passed a resolution. This is what it said. ``The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in our schools.''

Would that Congress have indicated it is inappropriate to have ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

Let us look at our schools, because that reflects the milieu in which our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution was written. For over 200 years, the New England Primer was used, and this is the way it taught the alphabet.

A, a wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is heaviness to his mother.

B, better is little with the fear of the Lord than abundance apart from him.

C, come unto Christ all you who are weary and heavily laden.

D, do not the abominable thing, which I hate, sayeth the Lord.

E, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.

And so it went through all the 26 letters of the alphabet.

Do you think that the society at that time, with that kind of a primer in their schools, would have imagined that we could be debating today whether it was okay to say ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

The McGuffey Reader, used for over 100 years, it was so successful in getting children to read that a few years ago it was brought back to some of our school districts where children were not learning to read with the hope that there was something magic about the McGuffey Reader.

``The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on the character of God, on the great moral governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source,'' and this is all from the author of the McGuffey Reader, ``from no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred scriptures. For all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apologies.''

Do you think that all of those thousands of school children and their families who used the McGuffey Reader could have imagined that we would be debating this subject today?

Of our first 108 schools in this country, 106 were distinctly religious. Harvard University, the first university, named after a beloved New England pastor, John Harvard, this is what they said. ``Let every student be plainly instructed and expressly and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life. John 17:3, and, therefore, to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.''

This was in the student handbook for Harvard University. For over 100 years, more than 50 percent of all Harvard's graduates were pastors.

What have we reaped in our Nation in our departure from recognizing that God is a part of our heritage and it is perfectly appropriate to say ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?

America 100 years ago had the highest literacy rate of any nation on Earth. Today we spend more on education than any nation in the world, and yet since 1987 we have graduated more than 1 million high school students who could not even read their diploma.

We spend more money than any nation in the industrialized world to educate our children, and yet SAT scores fell for 24 straight years before finally leveling off at the bottom in the nineties, and they are not yet coming back up.

In a 1960 survey, 53 percent of America's teenagers had never kissed, and 57 percent said they never necked, that is, to hug and kiss. Ninety-two percent of teenagers in America said they were virgins in 1960. Just 30 years later, 75 percent of American high school students are sexually active by age 18.

In the next 5 years, we spent $4 billion to educate them on how to be immoral through trumpeting the solution of safe sex, and it worked. One in five teenagers in America today lose their virginity before their 13th birthday, and 19 percent of America's teenagers say they have had more than four sexual partners before graduation.

The result, every day, 2,700 students get pregnant, 1,100 get abortions, 1,200 give birth. Every day another 900 contract a sexually- transmitted disease, many incurable. AIDS infection among high school students climbed 700 percent between 1990 and 1995. We have 3.3 million problem drinkers on our high school campuses, over half a million alcoholics, and on any given weekend in America, 30 percent of the school population spends some time under the influence of alcohol.

Do we really want to take ``under God'' out of our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag? Should we not be doing something, Mr. Speaker, to reverse these trends in our country, rather to encourage them?

I would like to read now a prayer that was written by an Oklahoma high school student, a little poem written about prayer. ``Our New School Prayer.''

``Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule.

For this great Nation under God,

Finds mention of him very odd.

If scripture now the class recites

It violates the Bill of Rights.

And any time my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange, or green,

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law is precise,

Only prayers spoken out loud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall

May offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate,

God's name is prohibited by the state.

We are allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They have outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible,

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the unwed daddy our Senior king.

It is inappropriate to teach right from wrong,

We are taught that such ``judgments'' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd.

It is scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So Lord, this silent plea I make,

Should I be shot, my soul please take.''

Our Nation, which used to lead the world in every arena, now leads the world in these areas. We are number one in violent crime, we are number one in divorce, we are number one in teenage pregnancies, we are number one in volunteer abortions, we are number one in illegal drug abuse, and we are number one in the industrialized world for illiteracy.

Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that taking the phrase ``under God'' out of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is going to lead us in the right direction, or the wrong direction?

Alexis de Tocqueville, and this is really a significant observation, traveled this country, a young Frenchman, for 5 years, and he wrote, ``I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her great harbors, her fertile fields and boundless forests, in her rich mines and vast world commerce, in the universal public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.''

Mr. Speaker, had he visited us today when we represent only one person in 22 in the world, and yet we represent 25 percent of all of the goods and services in the world, one person in 22, somehow we have 25 percent of all the good things in the world, might he have wondered further about how we got there and what was significant?

``But not until I went into the churches of America,'' he said, ``and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness, did I understand the secret of her genius and power.'' Alexis de Tocqueville, after watching us for 5 years, concluded that the secret of our greatness and power did not lie in any of these great harbors or grain fields or military, not in our matchless Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, but he said, ``but not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.''

America is great because America is good; and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that taking the words ``under God'' out of our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag will make us a better people?

I would like to quote Abraham Lincoln again: ``We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other Nation has ever grown.''

Mr. Lincoln, after 227 years in this great, longest-enduring Republic in the history of the world, these words are even more significant, because relatively today we are a greater Nation among the nations of the world than we were at your time. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln, for your words.

``But we have forgotten God,'' he says. ``We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched us, and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all of these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self- sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming of preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended power to confess our national

sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.''

Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that Abraham Lincoln would understand why we are even debating in our Supreme Court the appropriateness of the words ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag?

I know that I quoted the words earlier, but I think that we need to hear them again. Abraham Lincoln said: ``It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us than from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here, highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.''

Mr. Speaker, I think that we face this discussion today because we would have forgotten from whence we came. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the newest generation has forgotten; I do not think they ever knew, because our textbooks have been bled dry of all of the references to our Christian heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that if the decision of this Supreme Court is grounded in the milieu in which our Declaration of Independence was written and our Constitution was written, they can reach no other conclusion but that the words ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag are completely appropriate, were completely anticipated by those who framed our Constitution, by the Roman Catholic who could not vote in Old Virginia or could not vote in Maryland, Charles Carroll, for whom Carroll County in Maryland is named and Carroll Creek that runs through Frederick City, Charles Keller a major architect of that establishment clause.

They did not mean, Mr. Speaker, that religion was unimportant in our country. What they wanted to accomplish is very clear in the words that they stated: ``Make no law concerning the establishment of religion.'' They did not want the Congress to empower one religion over another so that it could oppress the other religions. Because, Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers had come here from countries in the British Isles and in Europe, almost all of which were ruled by a king or an emperor who claimed, and was granted, divine rights. So they came here in our Declaration of Independence saying that all men are created equal.

We read those words, Mr. Speaker, but we do not realize how important they were in that day and time, that all men are created equal. ``No emperor or no king created above the others and endowed by their creator.'' And four times in the Declaration of Independence God is referred to, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Our Founding Fathers came here to escape two tyrannies, Mr. Speaker. One was the tyranny of the Church and the other was the tyranny of the Crown. On the continent, the Church was generally the Roman Church. In the British Isles, it was the Episcopal Church, and those countries empowered those Churches so they could if they wished oppress others, and they did.

When our Founding Fathers came here because of their resentment of that oppression in Old Virginia and in colonial Maryland, Roman Catholics could not vote. But when it came time to write the amendments to our Constitution, they recognized how important it was that we provide religious freedom to everybody, so they chose a Roman Catholic to be a major architect of that. It is no coincidence, I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the very first of these amendments, they addressed their concern that all people should be free to worship as they please, that they should empower no religion over another religion. They could not have imagined that we would interpret these words as requiring freedom from religion. They clearly meant them to assure freedom of religion.

I fervently hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court reviews in their private meditations the origins of our country, the milieu in which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written, so that they can reach what I think is the only acceptable conclusion, and that is that our Founding Fathers clearly anticipated that a phrase like this would be very appropriate to our heritage and would be very helpful to our people.

Mr. Speaker, it is my prayer that we will not need to come to this Chamber again to talk about this kind of a subject, that the Supreme Court will make a decision that will set to rest the concern about the role of God in our country. No one religion should be empowered so it can oppress the others. But beyond that, all people are free to worship as they please, and religion is not an inappropriate subject in the public domain.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, November 10, 2003, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, since there still is embolded in large cast letters above your chair the words ``In God We Trust,'' maybe it would be appropriate for me to note for the Sierra Club or Earth First! and Greenpeace that if they will go and read the Biblical account of creation, they will find that when the Lord placed Adam and Eve in the garden, he charged them to dress and keep the garden. The point is that even in a perfect world, the Lord recognized there was a need for man to intervene in the process of nature.

So I hope these groups will take that into account and note that that is exactly what this bill does, and it is all that this bill does, is to appropriately intervene in the process of nature to benefit the forest.

The other body has passed a similar bill, of course, with a lot of extraneous material, most of which costs money. I know you are going to want to prune a lot of that out. I hope there is one little piece of that extraneous material that survives the pruner's knife, and this is a little piece of legislation that has to do with animal rights. It simply enhances the penalties for interstate commerce in cockfighting and dog fighting. It costs zero dollars; and it will do a lot of good, because now these crimes will be prosecuted.

So my congratulations for a really good bill. I hope that this little animal rights addition in the Senate survives the pruner's knife.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today as the House cochairman of National Bible Week that will take place in 2003 during the week of November 23-30. The National Bible Association is organizing nationwide recognition of the importance of the Bible in our daily lives during this week. I would like to speak briefly about the importance of the Bible in the history of our nation, and the foundation of the government of the United States of America.

George Washington, our first President wrote:

It is impossible to govern the world without God and the

Bible. Of all of the dispositions and habits that lead to

political prosperity, our religion and morality are the

indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the

supposition, that is, the notion or idea, that morality can

be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both

forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in

exclusion of religious principle.

John Adams, our second President, was also President of the American Bible Society and this is what he said:

We have no government armed with the power capable of

contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true

religion.

And now listen to these words of John Adams:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious

people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any

other.

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, also served as President of the American Bible Society. He told his friends that he valued his presidency of the American Bible Society above his presidency of the United States. These are his words:

The highest glory of the American revolution was this. It

connected in one indissolvable bond the principles of civil

government with the principles of Christianity. From the day

of the declaration, they, that is, the founders were bound by

the laws of God which they all acknowledged as their rules of

conduct.

In the 1920's, President Calvin Coolidge said:

America seeks no empires built on blood and forces. She

cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.

He later wrote,

The foundations of our society and our government rest so

much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult

to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be

practically universal in our country.

The Bible has come up many times in cases before the Supreme Court. In 1811, there was a case the People v. Ruggles. This was a person who had publicly slandered the Bible. This case got to the Supreme Court and this is what they said:

You have attacked the Bible. In attacking the Bible, you

have attacked Jesus Christ. In attacking Jesus Christ, you

have attacked the roots of our Nation. Whatever strikes at

the root of Christianity manifests itself in the dissolving

of our civil government.

In 1845, there was a case Vida v. Gerrand. This was a lady teacher who was teaching morality without using the Bible. I have no idea how that case got to the Supreme Court, but it did, and this is what they said, ``Why not use the Bible?'' This is the Supreme Court:

Why not use the Bible, especially the New Testament? It

should be read and taught as a divine revelation in the

schools. Where can the purest principles of morality be

learned so clearly and so perfectly as from the New

Testament?

Consistent with this philosophy, the Continental Congress bought 20,000 Bibles to distribute to their new citizens, and for 100 years, at the beginning of our country, this Congress appropriated money to send missionaries to the American Indians.

The Bible has been an important foundation of learning in our schools. The Congress in 1854 made this statement about our schools. It said:

The Congress of the United States recommends and approves

the Holy Bible for use in our schools.

Consistent with that, it was used.

The New England Primer was used for over 200 years. Notice how they taught the alphabet:

A. A wise son makes a glad father but a foolish son is

heaviness to his mother.

B. Better is little with the fear of the Lord than

abundance apart from him.

C. Come unto Christ, all you who are weary and heavily

laden.

D. Do not do the abominable thing, which I hate, sayeth the

Lord.

E. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of

God.

The ``McGuffey Reader,'' was used for 100 years. Not too many years ago it was brought back to some of our schools when for a number of years the achievement scores had considerably dropped and we graduated over 1 million people who literally could not read their high school diplomas, and, out of desperation, they brought the ``McGuffey Reader'' back to some of the schools, because when we had that in our schools, the graduates could read when they graduated from school.

This is what the author says about The ``McGuffey Reader'':

The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From

it derived our notions on the character of God and on the

great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are

founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no

source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the

sacred scriptures. For all of these extractions from the

Bible I make no apology.

There has been a determined movement over the last 50 years to denounce the Bible as a document that is irrelevant in our modern society. Worse than irrelevant, there has been a concerted effort which has succeeded in removing the Bible and even prayer from schools on the grounds that it is dangerous and offensive.

A couple of years ago a young woman in a high school in Oklahoma wrote this poem as a new school prayer:

Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule.

For this great nation under God,

Finds mention of him very odd.

If scripture now the class recites

It violates the Bill of Rights.

Any time my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange, or green.

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law is precise.

Only prayers spoken out loud are serious vice.

For praying in a public hall

Might offend someone who has no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate,

God's name is prohibited by the State.

We are allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They have outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the ``unwed daddy'' our Senior King.

It is inappropriate to teach right from wrong,

We are taught that such `judgments' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd.

It is scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So Lord, this silent plea I make:

Should I be shot, my soul please take.

The Bible is as relevant today as it has been since it was written for very simple reasons. The Bible is the word of God for Jews and Christians around the world. Every American should be taught to understand that the foundations of our government are rooted in the moral teachings of the Bible. For people of all faiths, the Bible offers universal ethical guidelines of right and wrong, good and bad and simple rules to follow to lead a virtuous life and establish a just society.