Protecting American Citizenship, Focusing on America 250

This hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to order today's topic is protecting American citizenship America two fifty and reclaiming American citizenship will start with an opening statement by myself the ranking member um probably Senator Durbin after that in just a few days on July fourth, America turns two hundred and fifty years old. A serious nation marks an anniversary like that with remembering the people who made the inheritance possible. The American story begins with a declaration, a bold one, but it doesn't stay on parchment. It moves. It crosses rivers, cuts roads through forests, climbs mountains, builds cabins, churches, farms, courthouses, towns, and states. It begins with the founders, then is carried forward by citizens. George Washington crossed the Delaware with an army that was cold, hungry, unpaid, and close to collapse. He held them together. He won. Then, when victory offered the oldest temptation in politics, he gave power back. Washington proved the republic needs men strong enough to command, to command, and disciplined enough to surrender command. At Philadelphia, Thomas Jefferson gave the revolution its creed, "Rights come from the creator, government rests on consent." A people may resist tyranny when government destroys the ends for which it exists. Those words were a pledge by men ready to risk their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor. Madison and the framers then gave that creed a constitution, structure. They understood that liberty needs law, self-government needs structure. A free people must know how to govern themselves without surrendering their freedom to kings, mobs, or bureaucrats. Then the story moved west. Daniel Boone cut through the Cumberland Gap and helped open Kentucky. He walked o- on into danger so many families could then follow. Lewis and Clark left for Missouri and pushed up the river into a continent still unknown to the American mind. The core of discovery mapped, measured, hunted, negotiated, endured hunger, crossed mountains, and kept moving. They turned blank space on a map into a route for a new people. Davy Crockett carried that same spirit from the frontier to Congress, and then to the Alamo. He was a hunter, soldier, storyteller, legislator, and finally a defender. Crockett reminded us that American citizenship was never supposed to be soft. It was plain spoken, independent. brave, and willing to stand when standing meant death. Kit Carson was a Missourian from the old edge of the republic. He left boyhood behind on the Santa Fe Trail and spent his life where civilization met danger. He guided John C. Fremont, crossed the Rockies, rode through deserts, fought in wars, and made himself useful wherever the country needed men who could move, endure, and lead. Carson helped make the West knowable, passable and American. That's the story our children should know. America was built by founders and frontiersmen and soldiers and statesmen, farmers and mothers, preachers and pioneers. They were mortal men that carried an immortal inheritance. The republic survived because ordinary Americans understood that freedom is inherited as a duty before it is enjoyed as a right. Last week, the Senate unanimously passed legislation to repass the declaration of independence. Now the House must act. Speaker Johnson should bring it up, pass it, and send it to the President's desk so the President can sign the declaration again on Independence Day. That would be a national act of memory. And memory is exactly what this moment requires. Too many institutions now teach that the American story is an indictment. instead of an inheritance. They treat patriotism as embarrassing, national memory as dangerous, and gratitude as a sign of ignorance. They reduce our heroes to their flaws, our founding to its contradictions, and our country to its sins. That is civic vandalism. A country cannot survive if it teaches its children to despise the men who built it, distrust the constitution that protects it, and sneer at the flag that marks the graves of those who died for it. That is why the fight over America two fifty matters. The two hundred and fiftieth birthday of the United States should look and feel like America. Should have a flag. Should have an anthem. It should have the White House, the National Mall, military flyovers, state fairs, rodeos, families, veterans, and citizens gathered together to celebrate the greatest nation in the history of the world. It should be unapologetically American. This anniversary should not become a bland bureaucratic exercise, managed by people embarrassed by ordinary patriotism. It should be a national recovery of memory, of gratitude, and duty. Citizenship is the bond that turns land into country and a population into a people. It's the reason we the people can govern. It's the reason the vote belongs to citizens. It's the reason public schools once taught young Americans to revere the declaration honor the constitution and recognize that heroes, who carry this country forward. The lesson is simple. America is kept by citizens, by people who know they belong to a nation, owe allegiance to that nation, and have a duty to pass it on. At two hundred and fifty years, that is the spirit we must reclaim. Senator Welch.

Um, pardon me, thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, America's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary is an incredible, incredible milestone, and it belongs to each and every one of us. The word citizen, I think, uh, the chairman used is right, and so much of what you just, uh, read in your opening statement I agree with. And it is a time for us to ask how do we strengthen our democratic experiment into the future? Uh, and it's not foreordained. It's up to each generation to renew it. And I believe we should be using the moment to focus on those shared ideals that our country was founded upon in liberty or rejection of tyranny, consent to the governed, as you mentioned, Mister Chairman. And it also represents an opportunity for each and every one of us, regardless of our political orientation, to celebrate this country that we're part of, that we helped build. In twenty sixteen, Congress came together to establish a planning commission to celebrate America's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. And the commission was bipartisan. The goal was to allow America and our ideals to be the focus and not the focus being on any one person. Um, to my dismay and regret, President Trump, in my view, has decided to create a completely separate entity called Freedom Two Fifty, uh, which was to develop its own plans for our anniversary. And this entity with very little oversight, is estimated to cost a hundred and three million dollars in taxpayer funds, and the official planning organization authorized by a bipartisan vote of Congress has received a fraction of that. And my view, the president seems to be using this occa uh this occasion t- to enga- engage in self-promotion self-dealing and selling access to himself. That's not what a two hundred and fiftieth anniversary that belongs to each of us should be about. So we have the president wanting to create a tr- an arc uh of two hundred and fifty feet high. Uh on July fourth the president plans to hold a political rally on the National Mall. It really is about honoring him as opposed to celebrating the shared history that all of us are part of. And there are many other examples. uh, putting the p- p- president's face on a two hundred and fifty dollar bill. Uh, that's, this is the opposite of what, uh, President Washington did when he, uh, essentially walked away from power. Uh, there are countless other examples. Though Freedom, through Freedom two fifty, President Trump has also engineered a pay to access scheme. This happened where individuals and corporations compete for proximity by the amount of money they pay. That actually is happening. The president hosted a UFC fight on the White House grounds for his birthday. Uh, tickets were sold for up to one point five million dollars. Uh, the company built a ninety foot f two foot ho uh tall, sixty hundred ton steel structure called The Claw, damaging the White House south lawn in the process. Uh, conservatively, the damage will cost taxpayers seven hundred thousand dollars to repair. Not to mention the estimated ten to twelve million in taxpayer funds that were used for security in the event. Freedom two fifty is selling speaking slots at the president's July fourth rally, two and a half million dollars a pop. That's just not the way it should be. And they're self-dealing. Dana White, the CEO of the UFC, is a close friend and ally of the president and president owned the president owned stock in UFC's parent company. Some of the fighters who participated in the event were paid not in cash, but in Trump family crypto. And the president's family collaborated with UFC to sell Freedom two fifty gold coins with Trump's face on them. The cost of those coins, up to twelve thousand dollars each. The president also awarded no bid or low competition contracts to repair the in the on the reflecting pool uh in quote American flag blue unquote. That project has now cost taxpayers about sixteen million dollars. Experts have said that the dark color of the paint raised the temperature of the water leading to algae blooms, the most algae recorded in the last five years. And part of that sixteen million was a one point seven million dollar, no bid contract, and no bid contract that went to Greenwater Solutions. The company is owned by John Caffaro, a contributor uh to President Trump and also a Mar-a-Lago neighbor. Uh, Mr. Caffaro's contract is to create a new filtration system for the pool, but as you may have noticed, the filtration system isn't working. Maybe they can use the vacuum of algae to fix the White House lawn that was damaged after the President's birthday party. And now President Trump is using the Park Police and National Guard to arrest people uh who touch the water in the reflecting pool. Literally, National Guard is out there doing that. Those they've even arrested a three-time Olympian uh who says he only touched a piece of loose paint. That's happening on our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. Mister Chairman, I am so glad we recognized America two fifty today, and I so much of your statement I really agreed with. But we can't have this discussion without acknowledging what happened two hundred and fifty years ago. The founders declared independence, severing ties with the British king, because they knew their liberty was being subverted by the king and his inner circle of corrupt uh parliament advisors. And these advisors gained access to the king through their money and their status to bypass parliament. I can't help but notice how closely the president's actions mirror the concerns that shaped our founding. He has fostered a marketplace, a marketplace for influence, where access goes to the highest bidder. And it's a bitter irony that President Trump is honoring our nation's anniversary by embracing many of the practices that the founders rejected. clear, we should be celebrating what makes this country so great, freedom of speech and religion, responsive representation, the rule of law, our beautiful geography, our vibrant culture, our rich traditions, the rule of law again. And we have so much to be proud of. And, mister uh, chairman, one of my favorite traditions dating back to nineteen O nine is the bipartisan congressional baseball game. It occurred just a few weeks ago. And for those of you who missed it, Chairman Schmidt made an incredible diving catch during the game. And I hope the Cardinals were there watching.

Okay.

So so so congratulations, Mr. Chairman. But this celebration has to be about all of us, not about an individual person. It has to be about a shared sense of values and commitment to the future. And it has to be at a s about a celebration, not part private personal gain. Uh, those are the traditions we should be celebrating. Uh, Mister Chairman, I yield back and congratulation to you on your heroics.

Thank you. We can agree on that. So thank you. I appreciate that. Senator Durbin.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and having grown up across the river from you in Illinois, uh, I listened very carefully at you as you recounted the history of the United States and virtually every founding father who ever touched Missouri uh in the process. Uh, I believe you included Lewis and Clark and Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett, and so forth. You only left one uh person of great repute, one of our founding fathers, who transformed America, Stan Musial, out of that uh equation. But we'll forgive you for that. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two hundred and fifty years ago, a group of men gathered in Philadelphia and drafted the Declaration of Independence, we all know that. They went on to draft our Constitution, Bill of Rights, creating something the world had never seen before, a nation founded not on ethnicity or bloodline, but on universal ideas. The idea that all men were created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights. The idea that the government derived its power through the consent of those it governed. That was a, a unique idea. For the first time in human history, a nation defined itself rather than by its ancestry. That is an achievement worth celebration, and we should celebrate it. But as we do, we must reckon honestly with the founder's failures. The men who signed the Declaration enslaved people. They proclaimed liberty while denying it to millions. Slavery was our nation's original sin. So at the time, not all men were treated equally, let alone all people. Acknowledging that truth isn't an attack on America. It's the beginning of an understanding of what we have been through, what America actually is. There's nothing wrong with that. I can recall the creation, uh, th- at least the existence of the Soviet Union and how the Soviets time and again would rewrite history to match what they wanted to ha- happen, not what actually happened. Acknowledging the truth isn't an attack on America. It's the beginning of understanding who we are. Because the story of this country is a story of progress, forward movement and change. We fought a civil war over the issue of slavery, and at the end ratified the fourteenth amendment. We passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. We recognized the dignity of women, workers, and people with disability. We're nothing, uh, we're not, we didn't come up short because of that recognition. we made the promise of liberty extend forward. And with each generation we've extended the promise of the founding to new Americans. Immigrants who formed the fabric of our nation have made what it is today. That progress is a true measure of America's goodness. In nineteen eleven a ship landed in Baltimore, Maryland, and a mother got off the boat with three little kids. She was on her way to the land of opportunity, and that land of opportunity She believed was East St. Louis, Illinois, where I was born and raised. That was my grandmother, and my two year old mother was one of the passengers. In my office today is my mother's naturalization certificate, a reminder to me and to everyone who visits, I am the proud son of an immigrant. I am not embarrassed by my immigrant ancestry, I am proud of it. And the amazing things that those people achieved made a better life for me and for this country. Efforts to overturn that progress are deeply troubling to me. Efforts to turn back on our history as a nation of immigrants. To erode the civil rights protections that generations of America had sacrificed to secure. We shouldn't be about rewriting history like the Soviets. Let's be honest about it. The warts and all the wrinkles included. Let's hear the whole story. Let's not be afraid of the truth in America. To reinterpret the fourteenth amendment, ratified to ensure that no one born on this soil would ever be defined as anything less than a full American. We didn't come this far to go back, nor did we come this far to diminish our collective progress by elevating and cheering on petty- pettiness, cruelty, and corruption. Unfortunately, President Trump's contribution to this anniversary has been to repair the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool to American flag blue, through a no-bid contract to a clearly unqualified firm. We know what happened next. The cost ballooned from one point eight million to more than fifteen million. The paint peeled. The algae returned. Seemingly without evidence, the president has blamed vandals and terrorists. There are cameras on that reflecting pool f- twenty four seven. If somebody tried to g- gash the bottom of that liner two hundred and fifty feet, do you think we might have caught him? We would if it actually happened. But the reflecting pool is just the most visible system symptom of something much deeper. This president and his administration is engaged in breathtaking corruption, accepting a four hundred million dollar luxury jet from the government of Qatar, suing his own internal revenue service for ten billion dollars, and being rewarded by the man who wants to be attorney general with lifetime immunity from potential tax crimes. Lifetime immunity? Have we ever given that to anyone in America? The president gave it to himself, and that slush fund of one point eight billion dollars, engaged in blatant blatant self-dealing through his family's crypto vehicles, while also adding to his list of foreign conflict of interest with Trump branded project projects abroad like the new Trump tower in Tbilisi, running a pump and dump scheme through Trump and Melania mem coins that resulted in investors losing over four billion dollars and interfering in high profile mergers such as Paramount, Warner, for his own personal and political benefit. And he's turned the Department of Justice into both a shield that dismisses case against his allies and those who violently attack his capital and a sword that targets his political opponents that is not the rule of law that is weaponization. That is corruption not behind closed doors but with the doors wide open. And it's precisely what the founders feared when they built this republic. So as we gather to mark two hundred and fifty years of American democracy, let's be honest about who we were and who we are. We've made extraordinary progress. I'm not embarrassed to say I'm a patriot. I love this country. I'll bet you most everyone in this room who shares my feelings. The founders gave us a republic. The question on this anniversary is whether we have the wisdom and courage to keep it and to be honest. I hope today's hearing rise to that challenge. I yield.

Thank you, Senator, it is the custom of this committee to have our witnesses sworn in, so if you would please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give to this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Thank you.

Thank you. Be seated. Okay, well I will um introduce the witnesses and go from left to right, and then uh give your opening statements again. We appreciate um all three of you being here. Chris Griswold is the Policy Director at American Compass, a Washington DC think tank focused on rebuilding a conservative economic agenda around workers, families, communities, and the common good. He previously served as a senior policy advisor to Senator Marco Rubio, and has held research fellowships at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rutgers University, and the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry in Tokyo. His writings, or his writing appears in American and International Outlets. Before entering policy world, he helped launch a nationwide youth development non-profit in South Africa. He's a graduate of Wheaton College and Princeton Theological Seminary. Uh, Mister Mister Whitehouse, Tim Whitehouse is here, he's the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national non-profit organization based in Silver Spring, Maryland. He has spent more than thirty years working on environmental issues across government, business, non-profit, and community settings. before jo- joining PIER. He served as a senior attorney at the EPA and led the law and policy program at the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation in Montreal. He's also worked as a consultant on environmental compliance issues and with nonprofit organizations focused on clean energy, climate, toxics, and nuclear disarmament. He holds a JD and BA from Emory University and an MA from NYU. Thank you for being here. And Doctor Matthew Spalding. is the Kirby Professor in Constitutional Government and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College where he oversees the Kirby Center in Washington DC. He's the author of The Making of the American Mind, the Story of Our Declaration of Independence, and We Still Hold These Truths, and served as Executive Director President Tru- of President Trump's seventeen seventy-six commission. Doctor Spalding has written extensively on the Declaration, the Constitution,

Uh, Mister Chairman, uh, Ranking Member Welch, Senator Durbin, thank you so much for having me. Uh, American Compass is an economic policy think tank. Our goal is an American economics that remembers what the ultimate purpose of an economy is, which is human flourishing, productive activity and healthy institutions that support that flourishing. But when we look around, it's pretty clear that America's economic failures are symptoms of a deeper failing. The signs of decline are all around us, rising inequality, falling marriage rates, exploding deficits, voiceless and disposable workers, isolated individuals, collapsing communities. And as we've talked to people both in and outside the Washington bubble, we keep returning to one concept, to describe what people feel they've lost. Citizenship. People feel that we have lost our sense of shared citizenship, solidarity, mutual obligation, the agency that we have together as the American people. Uh, not citizenship in the legalistic sense, but in the thick reciprocal relational sense that provides the bedrock of a functional republic. Citizenship in this sense is the bond that turns a population into a unified people, establishing mutual obligation within our communities, across the nation, and between generations. Uh, but if the American people increasingly do not understand themselves to be full and equal participants in a shared American project, if the failed communal, economic, and national scripts we've been running are proving insufficient, then the question begs itself, what happened? Well, I think what happened is that the American elites responsible for setting the nation's course corrupted the communal, economic and national life on which it depends. And we willingly shirked our obligations, devolving from citizens into mere consumers. And so, in an era of unprecedented wealth, we face fiscal collapse and tenuous economic security for working families. We face generational collapse as we fail to guide young people towards successful adulthood. We face institutional collapse as both our markets and our government continually betray our trust. Reclaiming American citizenship then begins with the assertion that it is worth reclaiming and with articulating what we might do with that shared agency once reclaimed. A few ideas of what I think that might look like. One, we must reject isolation and atomization. We are disconnected from each other and increasingly from reality. We must choose instead laws on a culture that provide well-defined paths through life supported by meaningful relationships and institutions refocused on their purpose. We must reject stagnation and sclerosis. Our society has lost its ambition, its appetite for risk, and its interest in the future. We must choose instead a youthful determination to channel our common resources towards achieving great things. We must reject the lottery economy. Economic opportunity has become another word for escape from the blighted conditions in which everyone else lives. We must choose instead the vindication of every citizen's inherent dignity, premise not on escape for the few but decent lives for all. We must reject naked consumerism and choose instead a non-negotiable commitment to agency, competence, self-determination, and the use of technology to enrich lives rather than monetize their decay. We must reject chaos and corruption. Our elites have normalized the culture of taking what they can get, we must choose instead to rebuild trustworthy institutions, and impose consequences on those who abuse power for personal gain, whether in the halls of government or on the company jet. We must reject polarization and despair. The polluted public square has become an arena merely for fighting and capable of achieving change. We must choose instead a responsive politics that has faith in the wisdom of ordinary citizens. Decline is a choice, and we can choose otherwise. It is the precise purpose of our citizen-led republic as described in our constitution, to do just that, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. And we have a guide as to whether or not we are achieving those purposes well. offered in the Declaration of Independence written two hundred and fifty years ago this year that all of us are endowed by our creator with infinite dignity and worth. It is the purpose of citizenship to protect it. And so my message to the committee is that if our leaders want to reclaim the promise of our shared American citizenship, if we want to protect it and preserve it, we must begin by reclaiming a sense of what that shared citizenship means and what it is for. and offer that positive, furiously optimistic vision to the American public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mister Whitehouse.

Yes, uh, Chairman Schmitt, uh, Ranking Member Welch, Senator Durbin, and all members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for the work that you do. As Americans mark our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, the themes of shared civic identity and citizenship give this commemoration its deepest significance. That is why America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday should be a moment that brings us together. Unfortunately, what should be a nonpartisan celebration has become a growing scandal involving secrecy, political favoritism, and the diversion of significant taxpayer funds and resources to a private entity, operating outside the oversight structure Congress created. The American people deserve answers. Here's some background. In twenty sixteen, Congress established America two fifty as the official bipartisan entity responsible for commemorating our nation's two hundred and fifty th anniversary Congress created a structure with oversight mechanisms and clear lines of accountability that public funds would be spent appropriately and that the celebration would belong to all Americans, not to any political party, administration, or special interest group. And that's all in line with past precedents. Shortly after Congress appropriated funds to the Secretary of the Interior for observance of this important anniversary the Trump administration created a private entity, Freedom Two-Fifty, shielded as a limited liability company and as a subsidiary of the National Park Foundation. And public reports indicate that Secretary Burgum directed at least a hundred million dollars in taxpayer money to this private and increasingly partisan entity. Since then, reports have raised troubling questions about whether Freedom Two-Fifty is being used to sell access to the president, conceal the identity of donors, and spend taxpayer dollars on partisan political activities. It was in that spirit the organization I lead, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, sent a letter to Interior Secretary Burgum in January of this year, seeking answers to some of these pressing questions. Specifically, we asked Secretary Burgum to disclose why a reported one hundred million dollars in taxpayer funds were diverted from America Two-Fifty to Freedom Two-Fifty, and how those funds were being used, to clarify whether Freedom Two-Fifty is raising private funds in addition to receiving taxpayer dollars, and to share information on government and National Park Foundation staff time and other in-kind resources. being used to support Freedom two fifty. The secretary has the ability to resolve these questions by releasing a full accounting of who funds Freedom two fifty and how it operates, but has failed to do so. And since we sent our letter, more troubling information has come to light. This includes reports that Freedom two fifty has crafted bespoke packages for sponsors. Sponsorship tiers begin at five hundred thousand, including VAP access and speaking roles at the national Fourth of July celebration. Sponsorship packages for lawn access to the UFC fight on the White House lawn reportedly began at one million dollars we've also seen repeatedly sponsored, uh, corporations paying money for sponsorships that have regulatory matters before the in uh administration. For example, Paramount's mega-merger with Time Warner was approved just a few days before Paramount exclusively broadcast the UFC fight on the White House lawn, thrown in celebration of their president's birthday. And just last week, President Trump posted on social media that he will be using National Fourth of J- July celebration to hold a political rally on the mall, after numerous entertainers pulled out because of the overtly political transformation of the event by Freedom two fifty. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that many of the employees that we often work with, especially National Park Service employees, are being pressured to wear Freedom two fifty pens, brought by the government from a Trump-aligned company, and to put Freedom two fifty logos on their official email signatures. A two hundred and fiftieth anniversary celebration should strengthen our trust in democratic institutions and work toward common civic identity not degrade into a political spectacle. When it comes to Freedom two fifty, the American people deserved to know who is funding this effort, and most importantly, what they expect to get in return. As I was thinking about today's uh uh hearing, I wanted to think about what we all shared in common as Americans and what we need to reclaim and so I think we need to reclaim and fight for transparency in government, accountability in government, oversight in government, and we need to put guardrails against the current pay-to-play politics in our system and to fight corruption. Those are civic values worth fighting for. Thank you for holding uh this hearing and discussing these important issues, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you. Uh, Doctor Spalding.

Uh, thank you, Chairman Schmitt, Ranking Member Welch. Uh, my testimony this afternoon focuses on the meaning and status of the Declaration of Independence, which was adopted by the Continental Congress on July fourth, seventeen seventy six. As a legislature of all the colonies, the Continental Congress spoke in collective terms and addressed their common relations with England. It was the first formal constitutional institution of American Union, and for all practical purposes, our first national government. The word " Congress" was first used to indicate a gathering of legislative, uh, of a legislative body, the first time by American colonists. Every official printing of the Declaration begins, " In Congress", July fourth, seventeen seventy-six. The closing paragraph of the Declaration begins, " We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress, assembled." Though it continued to call itself the Continental or Conf uh Confederation Congress, the Congress under the Articles of Confederation was formally referred to as the United States in Congress assembled. The Declaration of Independence is a legislative pronouncement, structured in the form of a common law legal document, parambil, statement of principles, indictment and facts, and a formal conclusion. It is all important, but the document's famous second paragraph, the one beginning we hold these truths to be self-evident, is a synched and powerful synthesis of American constitutional and popular ideas. The equality of all men does not deny qualities by which humans are unequal, but means that those human differences, physical, ethnic, social, racial, sexual, intellectual, are insignificant as a matter of right, and that the wise or the stronger do not have a just claim to rule. As the source of right, nature gives each an equal claim because all are equally human. That is the engine that fueled the abolition of slavery. All men are also equally endowed with certain unalienable rights. These rights do not come from government, but exist by virtue of our common humanity, whether understood by nature in the natural law tradition or by God. Government is instituted to secure these rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of those governed. As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence announced to the world the unanimous decision of thirteen American colonies to separate themselves from Great Britain. But it also announced our separate and equal station among the powers of the earth. John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress, in dispatching copies of the Declaration, instructed that it should be considered as the ground and foundation of a future government. Later, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison described the declaration as the fundamental act of union of these states. The Declaration is not a severance agreement, but America's first founding document, and it reigns a defining statement of America's meaning and purpose. It is also America's first constitutional document, and because of that it's listed as the first organic document in the first volume of the United States Code. That is why we celebrate July fourth, not the end of the Revolutionary War, the ratification of the Constitution, as our national birthday. But the declaration's greatest significance, both then and now, is its enduring statement to the limits of political authority and the proper ends of government and its proclamation of a new basis of political rule in the sovereignty of the people. The final appeal was not to any positive law or evolving tradition, but to rights inherently possessed by all. The distinct- the old distinctions of tribe, race, and ethnicity, whether Athenian or Spartan, Pa- pagan or Jew, Catholic or Protestant, black or white are no longer the determining factor of political legitimacy or nationhood. Our civic identity is grounded on a common recognition of equal humanity. As a nation among other nations, many of which do not recognize, respect our principles, let alone our national interest, America must ensure a strong internal sense of national identity. A profound example of this is our policies towards immigrants. Because our founding principles, this country as always welcomed immigrants who come here honestly with a good work ethic and appreciation of freedom seeking the promise and opportunity America offers. Yet by those same principles, we also insist that they must embrace their adopted country, not by rejecting ethnic, heritage and cultural identities, but through a deliberate and self-comment policy of patriotic assimilation. The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary, not because of a particular group of Americans declared their independence from the rulers, but because they did so by appealing to a permanent standard of justice. As such, the Declaration of the Meeting transcends history and the particulars of the time. "Self-evident truths, the laws of nature and nature's God, are not restricted to any to one era or nation. They are as true today as they were in seventeen seventy-six, applicable to all men at all times," as Lincoln wrote. "Now on our twelfth and fifty-fifth anniversary, we should take this opportunity to celebrate, but also relearn our history, but we must rediscover the truths that are held to be self-evident." The Declaration is the common creed of America's civic life. It unites us and makes America exceptional and worthy of our affection. I strongly urge the Congress to take appropriate and formal action to mark America's semi-quincentennial. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, uh, Dr. Spalding, I'll I'll start where America starts and kind of where you left off with with the Declaration. Your testimony describes the Declaration as the first um constitutional act and part of organic law. And the it begins by speaking of one people, um, uh, assuming it's separate and equal station among the powers of the earth. There's a lot of layers to that document and who the audiences were, and it was it was in the room it was the audience,

Yes.

it was the other colonies were the audience, the justification to the world that Locke sort of alludes to in his second treatise of what were the grievances upon which you can have this revolution. um, be be legitimate. Um, but what what does that phrase, what does the one people phrase mean to you? How do you how do you view that?

Uh, no, good question. Declaration assumes the Americans have become one people, at the beginning of the declaration. Uh, and through the declaration they make further distinctions between what that one people is and another, which turned out to be our British brethren. Uh, but the British brethren turns out are deaf to our claims of justice. Uh, why? because they are subjects, subjects of the crown. Uh, they are they are not citizens. Uh, in the founding documents, not just the declaration, but throughout the pamphlets and the writings of the time, the Americans always referred to themselves as a people. The British are not referred to as a people. They are subjects. Those distinctions, grounded in the declaration's understanding of rights, I think are absolutely crucial. Uh, they clearly meant uh our heritage, our history, our common sufferings. during the revolution, the place, uh, all the particulars we associate with being a people. But it wasn't because they're British, it wasn't because they're Protestant, it wasn't because of their color. It was because they had all those particular things in common, but then they fought together, uh, they thought through together, they governed together, um, and, uh, associated themselves with these principles, which had deeper roots than themselves. Uh, the principles, uh, enunciated in the declaration, which Jefferson famously called an expression of the American mind, not his, not John Locke's even, but it, but the American mind. So, I, I think the notion of a people combining, uh, particulars as well as universals, uh, the idea of a place and, and, uh, an existence, uh, that we'd associate with, with nationhood throughout the world, but also a dedication to these universal principles is what defines a- American citizenship in such a profound way, uh which is why the uh s- understanding of of of peopleness you get in the Declaration is is is definitive, uh or or defines what we mean by citizenship and what it means to become a citizen, means to become and participate in us as a people, which means understanding, among other things, our principles and ideas. Um, uh, which is why I think the the declaration teaches us two things in particular about that question. One is anyone could become an American, in theory, in principle, uh, as opposed to say being a Frenchman, that's an ethnic, uh, or a historical or bloodline, uh, but anyone could become an American. But it must be according to our consent and according to our principles. Uh, we welcome them here under those circumstances. I think that's all tied to the notion of citizenship that grows out of the declaration's understanding of people.

Um, very well said. Uh, Mister Griswold, um, your testimony begins with this um, same idea, uh, in, you know, um, in our, in our present national life. You talk about the bond uh, that a population has uh, into a unified people. What um, and, and for decades um, I, I've certainly viewed it, I, I think I think you probably would agree that Washington in many ways is treated um America as some sort of like economic zone with some airports and there's GDP numbers and um there's consumers and beneficiaries and and in many many ways we sort of lost the the concept of of citizenship. It's certainly not taught. It's certainly not taught in schools and it's been I think it's been degraded by some of the things we saw the four years with with our uh with our um lack of you know, border security, but um what did we lose when leaders stopped talking about citizenship or or what can be gained if we start talking about it again?

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we've lost a great deal. Uh I think we've lost, as I mentioned in my testimony, um a a coherent set of communal, economic, and national norms. Um but maybe more personally, I think what we've lost is the capacity to see ourselves uh as as what we are and

As FIFA, as people visiting for the World Cup maybe see us.

Yes, yeah, yes. And and I think I I think we have gotten to a point where the American people see themselves as less than what they are, right? If you are um convinced that your vote doesn't matter and that politics is not responsive to your real concern, you start to think of yourself as something less than a full participant in a democratic republic as something less than a a full citizen. Uh if you are uh discarded easily from your job when your job is casually shipped overseas uh because Washington didn't care about the capacity to make things in America or if you are unable to spend time with your family because your employer at your low wage job is subjecting you to variable scheduling every day um you start to think of yourself as something less than a full participant in American economic life. Um I have a uh a friend named Skyler who was in the Rust Belt He's an electrical contractor without a college degree. So he's exactly the kind of guy that politicians love to tokenize a dirt. Uh, and he has become quite disillusioned with politicians of all stripes kind of presumption to speak for working people. Um, but the other day I sent him the uh statement that a American compass recently released on reclaiming American citizenship. And he told me that it was the most energizing thing he had read in a long time. And when I asked him why, this is what he said. I I wrote it down because I wanted to read it for you. Uh, he said he didn't know how any pursuit of the common good could actually occur in a society where we are all living our lives not as engaged citizens, but as individuals whose only felt participation in anything outside ourselves, as consumption and outrage. Uh, he talked about how our politics and media and elected leaders benefit from making us suspicious of one another. uh distrusting of our fellow citizens. Um and then to answer your question, what do we stand to gain, the last thing he said to me that struck me the most um was that what the American people are desperate for uh is a furious and relentless optimism, his words, that can steamroll American nihilism and hopelessness. Uh and his uh request to me was to pass along to you that inviting Americans to participate a renewed sense of aggressive optimism is the most enticing thing that working Americans could hope for. So I I think we have lost a tremendous amount, I think we stand to gain a tremendous amount if we can reclaim this sense of ourselves as as full agents as full actors in our communal, economic and national life, as full citizens, um who are capable of doing things together um that we aren't capable of doing apart uh in the service of a shared goal. uh, as as as Americans.

Well, I think, um, very well said. And I also, I think of, uh, although he comes later, um, it it sort of reminds me of Tocqueville when he's writing Democracy in America and he's sending this basically it's like a dispatch back to Europe like what's happening in America you know the war of eighteen twelve had ended the the British finally accepted the idea that we were a independent nation after they burned the White House down, um, or set fire to it. Um. And he's writing back and he's trying to figure out what's going on with this kind of American dynamism and what's happening. And he thinks he's gonna figure out that Washington DC maybe has some better bureaucrats uh than they have uh in Europe. And he gets into the the countryside.

Yeah.

And what he realizes is that um what makes America great was this real, this sense of community, this sense of people, a nation of joiners, that people were connected. to their church, or the modern day Knights of Columbus, or whatever it is. And so I think there's a real risk in this kind of centralization that's happened over time and why rail on the administrative state and these sort of things, because it is something that wasn't considered by the founders, but this kind of aggregation of authority or looking to this town to solve every problem. The truth of the matter is a lot of those, most of the really smart solutions come back home,

Mm.

When people are coming together and they're in a room face to face, and I think we're real risk right now with not just the things that are being, I think, taught in our schools to sort of despise America and only focus on the flaws, but beyond that, uh, in this age of technology where you just are seeing the numbers just don't lie, people are more disconnected, they're more isolated, and this sense of community that that, um, that can bring people together is is being lost. And I think that that sense of citizenship and the doing things, 'cause government, uh, you know, government is the purpose is supposed to be to secure these rights that we've been given by God. Um, and uh, I think it's become in many ways a substitute for that community that's been lost, that Tokesville writes about. So, uh, Senator Welch.

Um, thank you very much, I found the comments I heard from you, uh, Mister Griswold very interesting, and your comments as well. I do wanna address a few questions to Doctor Spalding. Thank you so much, uh, for being here. Um i i you were in December twenty twenty, President Trump appointed you, among others, to serve as ex or you to serve as executive director of the seventeen seventy-six commission. The panel's mission was to advise the president about core principles of the American founding and how to protect those principles by promoting a patriotic education. Um as executive director, uh did you author? or sign off on the commission's final report that was released on January twenty twenty one.

I guess I did, as director, yes.

Okay. And one section of the forty five page seventeen seventy six report entitled " Challenges to American Principal States", many Americans labor under the illusion that slavery was somehow a uniquely American evil, but the unfortunate fact is that the institution of slavery has been more than the rule than the exception throughout human history. I mean, is there some problem about being self-critical about the US role in slavery? That is demeaning to our sense of self?

Uh, not I not at all, I I actually um uh liked the way I I can remember it was uh, you, Senator Welch or Senator Durbin uh made the point that it's a fact of our history that must be openly discussed. I think that um uh I myself like, you know, I like to teach uh American history warts and all. Um, I actually think that the best way to teach it is actually to teach it clearly, um, uh, debate it clearly, uh, but also teach it fully, which I think in- also includes how the declaration and its principles really became the fuel of the abolitionist movement. Um, and so despite the, uh, Mister Jefferson, uh, owning slaves and writing the declaration on all the things we could put into that category. Uh, the fact is they overcame it. Um, that's the amazing part of it. So I've uh, the fuller story, but but yes, uh, there's n- absolutely no reason why that should not be a part of what we teach and note even on this anniversary.

No, I I appreciate you saying that, cuz I I think I admire people who, when they're assessing their own performance, have a capacity upon reflection and with a little distance uh, to be self-critical and appreciate that they came up short and, uh, try to learn from it. I mean, is there any difference, uh, in a person being willing to make their own personal self-assessment about their weaknesses and a country being willing to have a candid conversation about where it came up short in achieving its noble ideals, the ones we have in the Declaration?

Uh, in in general, I think the the the answer that that is no, that's how, uh, Martin Luther King looked at at that at it, that's how Frederick Douglass looked at it. Um, I I think the the probably the point I would make in terms of how with this national conversation this particular question has been uh occurring is to make the observation that uh kind of both sides of the debate, if you will, like to think of this in binary terms, um, all good, all bad, uh, whereas I think that it's a much more complicated question, as you've recognized. Uh, but I think one of the things we don't we rarely are capable of of of, or it's it's hard to teach and hard to explain is how you can hold a principle, all men are created equal,

Right.

uh, but understand that holding that principle does not mean you're able to bring it about immediately. Um, but somehow it's still praiseworthy to have put the principle down, to embed it in the declaration in particular, uh, such that it could be then carried forward. Um, and and it would become that that um uh that fuel, if you will. Uh, so the existence of slavery, as barbaric and as bad as it was, um to be noted in our history, uh should not overwhelm or overcome or erase the fact that the the the amazing fact that a a bunch of men, uh many of whom owned slaves, including Jefferson, uh many of whom did not, uh some of whom owned slaves and then got rid of them, and it, including a few abolitionists at the Continental Congress, um, the amazing thing is they began that document by by saying that all men are created equal. That's uh, I that's I think that was um uh looking back really the death knell of slavery,

Yeah.

despite the fact that it continued to exist. Um, the Continental Congress had already ab- abolished the slave trade.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, many states, uh, including your own and and a lot of the northern states immediately started moving towards abolition. Um, some slower than others. Um, and then our history is is kind of the the the tragic, uh, but also successful tale, a noble tale of how that played out.

Uh, well, thank you very much for that. Cuz I shared that. I think there's an aspiration and that aspiration was laid out in an eloquent way in the in the declaration. Uh, and each generation has the challenge to make us a more equal society and more perfect union. You know, uh, Mr. Griswold, I really appreciated your focus on the effort for us and the bene the the benefit to each of us when our life is about purpose and helping others and doing something beyond ourselves. But this is where I disagree with the chairman. I I just don't see when there's a debate about, say, the origins of slavery. or uh how it came to be or what uh are the challenges we face that that is goes into self hate, that that it it it it really reflects to me self-confidence about facing um the historical reality that uh is part of our tradition. Is that uh in conflict with your point of view?

No, sir, I don't think so. I think I I agree with my fellow witness that it's important to take an honest look at our whole history. Uh, I take a lot of guidance from uh the philosopher Richard W- Rorty's work

Mm-hmm.

uh where he found insights in uh psychological uh research. And we've learned that it is not possible to hate yourself into self-improvement. When you recognize that there's something wrong in your life or something wrong in your habits or behavior uh it's not possible to self-loathe your way

No, I I I agree with that.

And and that was his analogy.

But he wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be some self-assessment as to what people e exactly.

Uh No, certainly not. And uh and my only point, sir, was that I I appreciate um Richard Rorty's point that nations are like people, and that self uh self-respect and patriotism is the precondition of self-improvement.

Right. Right. Thank you. You know, the other uh part of this that is disturbing to me, uh that you heard me express in the opening statement was turning this into a mercantile event, particularly when uh there's some uh uh uh personal benefit uh from uh the various activities around uh two fifty. I mean, where does it fit? Uh, let me ask you uh first, uh, Mister Spalding. My understanding is the goal your commission had was to have a celebration that was owned by each and every one of us who is a beneficiary of the American tradition, as opposed to it being a tribute to an individual. Am I can you just answer that and elaborate?

Uh, no, in in general the the seventeen seventy-six report merely is a is a kind of a a marker. They were intended to be others, the first of a series of arguments, uh, intended to put at the very center of whatever we were doing. cuz it hadn't really been planned uh yet. Whatever it was gonna be was ultimately going to be having educational content uh and civic content. Um uh and it was really what about the that report focused on civic identity, civic education in a very powerful way as it's uh the intent of that anniversary

Right.

uh appropriate for marking the twentieth anniversary of of this great document in this great country.

Thank you very much. Uh and now I'd like to rec-

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Dr. Spalding, good to see you. Mister, a little known fact, Senator Welch. I am a former intern for Dr. Spalding, many, many years ago. You can blame him for many things.

You know, no, I, I, I've been searching for the reason why every once in a while,

Yeah.

I think you're pretty smart.

Oh, there you go. There you go. But can I just ask you? You've written so many books that have, that have emphasized, that have excavated the shared principles of which the country is founded, uh, that have tried to make those available, unpack those for the country. And this is an especially important year for that. But could you talk just a little bit, I know you're passionate about education. Can you talk about the importance of education, teaching those, propounding those principles to the next generation? It seems that this is an area where frankly we have a lot of work to do in this country and where many of our institutions of of higher education in particular, have really let us down. Uh, you're involved in this right now at your current institution at Hillsdale, but can you talk about the importance of that and the work that you think we have to do in this area?

Uh, thank you, Senator, for that uh excellent question, great topic, I can try to give a a brief focused a- answer to that. Uh, I've been teaching this for a long time and um uh the one thing I have come to realize is that, you know, uh the way we teach at various appropriate age levels is crucial. Um, uh, I'll point it uh, explain it this way, Noel Webster, the great educational thinker at the time of the founding, wrote extensively about how American education be focused on you know reading, writing and arithmetic. But a Republican government, a government in which self-governing citizens will rule, has an additional obligation to form them as citizens. Uh, but he also observed, which I think is is very w- very correct, uh, how you form them depends on the age. Uh, you know, we we we're having a very hot, I think, very serious uh intellectual debate in at the university level about what America means and and uh um uh various ideas we're talking about here, which I eng- I eng- I happily engage in and defend uh the that history. Uh, but I think it's important we don't miss that how you form younger students, uh, by which I include those at home when they're small children, in their local schools, elementary and through K uh K through twelve and high school, that's really where the important work of civic education occurs. Um, I was in middle school in nineteen seventy-six. I remember that very, very fondly and and and distinctly. Um, and I was going to high school as we approached the bicentennial of the Constitution. Uh, that's where you learn the the most important things. Uh, I think one thing we've we've sometimes done made civic education too, so shall I say technical, there are certain things you need to learn as a formality. Separation of powers, the important role of the legislative branch, um a proper understanding of executive powers, uh that that is all true. Uh but prior to that in many ways you needed to teach young people a basic narrative, a story, uh a history in in a very general way um that is that is not focused on taking one side or another in an academic higher education debate. But giving him the the grounding, they need to build an understanding and appreciation, and yes, a patriotic uh understanding uh of their country. Uh, Tocqueville, uh, someone had mentioned earlier the democracy in America. Uh, one thing Tocqueville does talk about is this concept of of patriotism. And he was struck by how it was different in America as opposed to say, as as opposed to France. Uh, and he observed that patriotism begins um uh, i- i- i- very, in a very local way. It, it, uh, you know, starts out as, as a sense of instinctive patriotism, um, our family, our, our uncle who fought in the war, our community, our home state. Um, but in a, in a, in a republic, again, it has to ultimately become reflective. Uh, and there's, there's this educational additional aspect to it that even Tocqueville saw when he was traveling here. So, I think the importance of that despite all uh the the academic debate which will continue, um and what those many universities are doing which I think are abandoning much of that, uh I think in the midst of all that we shouldn't forget the importance of that deeper sense of of of um civic patriotic education. And I think uh to go back to Senator Welch's point, this is the opportunity to do that. We have a moment, uh a window uh right now and for the next eleven years as we approach the twenty fifth anniversary of the constitution. We have a window into a lot of young people's hearts and minds to learn something about their country and I think we have an obligation and that Congress and the institutions of our government have an obligation, because they are teachers as well, uh to to recover that as best they can and and to lead us in that direction.

Well, I wanna thank you for making that a priority of of of your career and for doing it now for so many Americans and I wanna thank you on a personal note for doing it for me.

Thank you.

So m- so many years ago now. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um You know, next week, as this committee's been talking about and we're talking about increasingly around the capital and around the country Americans will be coming together to celebrate not just Independence Day but the United States of America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday this is an exciting time. And it should serve as a moment of a reflection on the totality of our nation's authentic history. Not just the good, but the good and the not so good alike, to truly appreciate the promise of our nation and the promise of our nation's future. But sadly, and this isn't shocking and it's certainly not partisan, what I'm about to say is just factual, there are people like President Trump, especially President Trump, who wanna rewrite our history. by ignoring parts that we ought to be learning from the most. Now, this subcommittee hearing is yet another attempt to gloss over our past even as we approach this historic milestone. As Mister Whitehouse testified, Congress created a nonpartisan US Semi-Quincentennial Commission back in twenty sixteen to oversee the commemoration of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Congress had that foresight. It's gonna take time to get this right. Ten years of planning and preparation. I was honored to ask to serve alongside my colleagues, Senators Capito, Murkowski and Shaheen as one of America two fifty commission's eight bipartisan congressional commissioners. But as he can't help himself, But do, especially with things that don't involve him, don't praise him, don't highlight him, President Trump couldn't help but try making America's two hundred fiftieth birthday all about himself. Right around this time last year, we saw him start to hijack and politicize America two fifty events, including the kickoff celebration at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on July third, a year ago. The president used that event meant to launch the year-long countdown To air his personal grievances, promote his political agenda and rant about his hatred of Democrats. Don't just take my word for it, roll the tape. And at the time since, the president has created a whole new entity called Freedom Two Fifty. Confusing to some. To funnel money from taxpayers and donors to pay for his pet projects and events, projects like the UFC fight on the South Lawn of the White House, which happened to be on his birthday, his quote " Solo to America" concert which turned into a Trump rally instead after musicians refused to perform at a partisan event, and the upcoming great American State Fair on the National Mall, which isn't gonna even include all fifty states as participants. None of these are official events organized by America Two Fifty Commission. The commission has received modest annual appropriations and done its best to raise private money in spite of all this drama. But Congress and the public deserve answers about how much taxpayer money has been spent on all the Freedom Two Fifty vanity projects that the president has directed. They deserve to know which donors have supported those efforts Not alone what requests might have been made alongside those contributions, how much of this has been pay to play or quid pro quo. When it comes to America two fifty, the transparency is absolutely there, but not when it comes to freedom two fifty. And in the face of all this, the president has done a hell of a job trying to undermine the work of America two fifty. But I'm proud of the resilience of America two fifty, under the leadership of Chair Rosie Rios, and a bipartisan board in staying true to its mission, the mission that was unanimously adopted by America two fifty in March of twenty, twenty four. That mission is, quote, " to inspire our fellow Americans, to reflect on our past, strengthen our love of country, and renew our commitment to the ideals of democracy through programs that educate, engage, and unite us as a nation." That includes commission approved programs like America's Fuel Trip, where students from across the country share their perspectives on what America means to them, and where they get a chance to earn a fuel trip to some of the nation's most iconic, historic and cultural landmarks. That's true inspiration. To celebrate the fourth of July, there will be an all-American, non-partisan, unifying celebration from coast to coast. beginning with a ball drop in New York City's Times Square and concluding three time zones over, my home state of California, at America's block party in the Los Angeles Coliseum, which will be hosting the Olympics in two years, America's Olympics, with proceeds benefiting feeding America. That is the true spirit of what this celebration was supposed to be about. That's the kind of uplifting and unifying celebration that we all need. So, Mister Chairman, the questions and concerns that I've had have been raised by other members prior uh in this committee, but I had to go on record uh to uh uplift the work, the commitment of the America two fifty effort. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Welch.

Uh Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Whitehouse. Uh, it there was a separate entity that was created. Um, and Freedom two fifty has crea has received over a hundred million dollars in taxpayer dollars for the country's two hundred and fifty anniversary. Uh, there isn't apparently much oversight. Can you just, uh, give your reaction to why this is a bad idea to have this separate entity?

Yes, um. I think the discussion we're having today about um shared civic values uh is relevant here uh one thing I have noticed in my travels throughout the world

Yeah.

is how uh transparent American government is about how much oversight there is of the executive branch and about how little corruption there is compared to most of the world and so as we think about our civic values now we not backwards but we need to look forwards and understand the moment we're in. And what's happening is through Freedom two fifty and all the other things happening in our government, we're moving to a government that's not transparent, it's not accountable, it's using taxpayer funds and resources to for partisan purposes and to support a particular political person or people, and it's pay to play politics. And so we need accountability, we need transparency. We need guardrails and we need oversight when organizations like Freedom two fifty are created.

And uh thank you very much. And just on this question of a celebration of our, and I emphasize our, two hundred and fiftieth uh anniversary, um how does it reflect on the capacity of everyone to share in that celebration if much of the celebration is focused on one individual, in this case, of course, President Trump. Uh, can you describe your reaction to that and how it affects our ability as a country to really enjoy this in a shared way?

Yes, I I think, you know, as the other speakers, Doctor Spalding and Doctor Griswold and and Chairman Schmitt and, um and Senator Welch and others have, as you have mentioned, you know, this should be a communal celebration, this should be a celebration of shared civic and understanding our history and looking forward to the future. And it's it's um it's sad that it's uh sort of come out this way into a spectacle for a political person and it's

Okay.

kind of

Okay. Uh-huh. Right. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the second round here, and I yield back.

Thank you. Um, I just had a couple of questions. Um, Dr. Spalding, I wanna ask you, um How how difficult is it, we talk about this common creed and this this unity that we wanna renew or maintain. How difficult is that if if the founding creed, uh which aspires this, you know, this sort of bold declaration of of dignity, uh is is taught to be a mask for oppression? How d- how difficult is this to sustain what we're talking about if that's what is being taught?

Uh, it's it's it's it's very difficult. I think the um the only way to teach it, which actually like uh everybody on on all the senators here have kind of embraced that approach, is to teach it in a comprehensive way. Uh, what I object to on on uh kind of both sides of that debate, what I would call the extremes of it, is uh on the one hand whitewashing history and and being so selective that you're not uh teaching any of the uh other aspects of history um including the question of slavery, let us say. Um on the other hand I think uh the uh the it's also extremely problematic and where I think we're seeing more of this right now at least in the at the university level and then it's percolating down through various curriculums is to emphasize the um uh the bad parts of American history almost to the exclusion in some cases which unfortunately leads some to conclude that America is actually not worth celebrating uh and it really becomes a more of an academic discussion about the the uh the questions in this case more recently, uh the question of slavery. Um that's problematic. Uh in order to c- to h- to maintain this creed, uh or the the broad set of principles we've been talking about here, uh there are certain baseline things that have to be taught. Uh the idea of human equality, uh the consent of the governed, the rule of law, uh are more fundamental of uh rights, what they are. Um Uh, and then we introduce in a way that's age appropriate, uh, which for smart kids is pretty early, but in a way that's appropriate, uh, for them to come learn about all the other things as well, such as slavery. Um, this is why I've always encouraged, you know, governors and states, uh, to be very involved in writing curriculum, uh, which is their c- their, their constitutional, uh, power and authority, uh, to shape it so that it's, it's appropriate to form citizens. Uh, you know, the the um I think too often um a problem we see both on the left and the right um is what is in history called the problem of presentism. Uh, there's a current debate which we want to engage in. In this case today it's uh racism. Or um and we look backwards into history to find ways to fight that debate. Uh, the current debate overwhelms the past. Uh, that's not a, that that's a very problematic way to approach teaching these things. Um, I for the when when this debate first came out, I thought it was a debate about history, it really isn't. It's a current debate about uh um uh opinions about America in current politics. Um, we've got to have a better way of teaching good history, warts and all, uh, but in a way that allows them to see through uh those warts to also see the great things they did accomplish. Uh, the tragedies, the flaws, but also the great accomplishments. uh, and the noble things that they did. Only then can you see that history and come to appreciate and indeed love a country that despite its flaws we are imperfect people because we are imperfect and flawed human beings despite that uh the country is so worthy of our affection. What makes it worthy are those ideas, those principles that are his- uh, uh, men and women throughout history, all the ones you mentioned, uh, moving westward and building this nation. they all were dedicating themselves to, many died for. Um, they've gotta come to appreciate that, because there's no sense having a civic identity if that civic identity is wor- is is meaningless. It's worth nothing, it's not worth fighting for. Uh, it's not worth teaching your own children. Um, and so I, I think how we teach it and how we talk about it and how we, uh, present it, uh, is extremely important and probably the most difficult uh thing we face because if if the American people come to believe that um uh uh well America does have the thing called the declaration, but they were a bunch of hypocrites because of slavery, so the declaration itself doesn't matter, and it's actually not even worth teaching because they didn't mean it, and it was merely an eighteenth century document of no import today, uh then we've lost the cause. And uh at that point uh you you always come as we come different tribes and ethnicities and break into smaller groups and you loo you lose that um identity, which I would suggest historically, um on the left and the right. I mean, my constitutional uh law professor was a great Leonard Levi, a man, a great man on the left. Um that was the consensus view. That was the old liberal consensus view. Um and and the possibility of losing that, I think, is a death knell to our to our country.

Thank you. Um, Miss Miss Whitehouse, I d I have to ask you. Cuz you've spent much of twenty twenty six suing uh Freedom two fifty. Um uh uh oh and we've there's been a lot of talk about some of the events that have been held, and I wanna show some images actually uh my friend used them as a negative. I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna have a different perspective here. As we celebrate American two fifty, is that something that makes you feel patriotic? This is of course the other night.

Yeah, I I was just gonna say I wasn't sure what what that what that was.

Yeah, it's from the other night before the UFC event. Uh, that's the National Mall. There's a rainb- I mean, for all the money that has been spent on America, you couldn't pay for that kind of lightning strike at the same time there's a rainbow on our national, does that m- I mean Does that make you feel patriotic?

I don't see you on the ring.

It's it's a beautiful picture, but we're not evaluating what um different events are being held. We were suing

No,

Recruit the students.

I know, I'm just asking your I'm just asking your personal opinion now, not the organization that sued to make sure these events would never take place.

Uh, it it doesn't leave me feeling patriotic or non-patriotic. It's a beautiful picture. I didn't know what it was,

OK.

but I love the Washington Monument.

OK. What about this one?

Uh, it's a beautiful picture. It looks like the UFC fight, but again our issue there is with transparency, not patriotism.

Okay.

We're not questioning anyone's patriotism.

Well, we're holding events to celebrate. What about the now this looks like AI to me, but it's not. It actually happened. This image of the Blue Angels flying over the White House with Americans who like UFC fighting I know that there some people in the pearl clutching that goes on, people don't like it, but lot of people like it. I mean, this cap and this is we're celebrating our freedom, the ability to do these sorts of things. Do you think that this is patriotic?

Again, it's not a question of whether it's patriotic or not. Our concerns is that when taxpayer monies are being used, that they're transparent about how they're being used.

Okay, I'm glad, I'm glad you brought that up.

So, yeah.

I'm glad you brought that up. So let's go to the last one. Um, speaking of America two fifty, now the organization you defend, here's what they have in their store. Okay, taxpayer dollars, this is the merchandise. I mean, is it too much, honestly, in America two fi- just to have the American flag? I mean, this is a Mexican flag. This is, this is America two fifty. This is the organization that you're defending when you try to sue uh Freedom two fifty out of a, out of existence. So they can't have those events with the images that we just saw, but rather sell these kinds of Tshirts. Does that make you feel patriotic?

I've never seen that, that Tshirt. We have an American flag in our house.

Well, good. I'm glad. Uh, sadly, twenty-six percent of Democrats will are are willing to to fly the American flag this fourth of July. Um, the number of Democrats, and I hate saying this, uh, that feel that they're proud or very proud of their country is thirty-one percent compared to ninety percent of Republicans. Uh, I would argue that we've got a serious problem and it starts with some of the education and why we had the hearing here today to celebrate what this country's about, instead of the lies that have been pushed on young people for now over one generation. So I wanna thank all of you for being here. Thank you for your time. I know it's not easy uh to carve out the time. Where is the There, sorry. Um, written questions for the record can be submitted until Wednesday, July first at five PM. We asked the witnesses to submit their responses within two weeks, so by Wednesday, July fifteenth at five PM, I wanna thank you for your testimony. The hearing is adjourned.

Happy July fourth.