Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we have seen an incredible amount of political posturing this week over SCHIP. The SCHIP program was created in a bipartisan effort to ensure poor children without health insurance have health care coverage. Poor children without insurance. Children, not adults. Some States have more adults on SCHIP than children. Poor children, not families making $83,000 a year, to get free health insurance. Poor children without insurance. Under the Democrat bill, one in three children who already have private insurance would drop their private coverage to get free government coverage. Let's ensure poor children have health coverage and do it in a bipartisan way, not shutting out Republicans the way they did in this last bill. This Democrat Congress truly is a dysfunctional Congress. They can't even get SCHIP reauthorization right.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the peaceful protestors in Burma deserve our support, and the brutal generals in charge of the SPDC must be held accountable. Reports on the number of deaths ordered by the dictatorship range from hundreds to thousands. It's difficult to get specific numbers, particularly as other reports detail the regime burning dead bodies so that no one can get an accurate count of the dead and disappeared. One new image shows the badly bruised and semi-dressed body of a Buddhist monk floating face down in the Rangoon River. The regime has also no respect for journalists. A Japanese journalist was shot point blank by the dictator's troops, and the regime detained other journalists. One senior Burmese intelligence official is claiming that thousands of protesters are dead, and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle. We must do everything possible to press the regime to stop the killing and detentions. This includes sanctions against the regime, specifically freezing bank accounts of members of the dictatorship. The people of Burma deserve to live in peace and freedom.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Columbia University defended the Iranian President's speech by invoking the right to free speech and speaking about open exchange of ideas. None of what he said on Monday could be construed as such. He dodged questions about his Holocaust denial. He ignored questions about his country's role in the death of American soldiers in Iraq. This same university does not allow our military's ROTC program on campus because they believe the military's ``don't ask, don't tell policy'' is discriminatory toward homosexuals. But if Columbia is that concerned about defending homosexuals, why did they let this dictator on campus? His regime doesn't discriminate against gays; it executes them. More than 400 homosexuals so far executed like this. Columbia University provided Mr. Ahmadinejad a sense of legitimacy and a forum that he will no doubt use to his advantage at home and abroad. It is unfortunate they don't provide the same to the fine young men and women of our armed services.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, over the last several days, the world has witnessed an incredible display of courage in the face of tyranny in Burma. Buddhist monks have been peacefully marching throughout the streets of Rangoon, as well as 25 other cities throughout the country. These pious men, revered by their countrymen, are peacefully calling for an end to the brutal military dictatorships that have held the country hostage for over four decades. Citizens are beginning to stand in support of the peaceful demonstration, at times protecting the monks from possible violence from riot police by linking arms, acting as a human shield. The military junta has warned that it may take action against the protestors, action that has been terribly violent in the past. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in solidarity with the people of Burma, who wish only for freedom and an end to the military dictatorship. And I call on the military regime to respect the will of the Burmese people to live in freedom.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PITTS. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman for his support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. First of all, I am grateful to the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. It is a very narrowly crafted amendment. Section 9003 of H.R. 3221 requires residential boilers to meet a series of energy efficient requirements. As you know, the Amish, which I have the privilege to represent, do not use electricity; it's against their religious beliefs. If the bill, as presently written, were to become law, the Amish would be forced to try to maintain their present boilers in perpetuity, creating an obvious and an avoidable safety hazard. Now, I know there are not a lot of Amish; they are comparatively few in number in this country. We only have something like 25 States that have Amish living in them, but I think we have a duty to be sensitive to their way of life, consider their needs when making law. I have a very simple amendment. It will provide an exception for boilers that operate without the need for electricity supply. Simply stated, boilers that are manufactured without any need for electricity, without any electrical connection, any electrical gauges, electric pumps, electric wires, electric devices of any sort would not be required to meet the requirements of this section. I urge passage of my amendment to protect the Amish and their way of life.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I was deeply disturbed to read a recently released report, by European Union non-governmental organizations, entitled Indian Helicopters for Burma: making a mockery of embargoes? The report provided details on India's negotiations with Burma's military junta since late 2006 and focused on the transfer of Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH) to Burma's military. India, the world's largest democracy, has increasingly spurned democracy supporters in Burma in favor of increased cooperation with Burma's military regime, even providing Burma's ruling generals with tanks, aircraft, artillery guns, radar, small arms, and the ALH. Absent any external enemy, Burma's military rulers have employed these arms and military equipment against its ethnic minority civilian population, resulting in the destruction of more than 3,000 villages, the use of forced labor, and the rape and murder of thousands of ethnic minority civilians. Even more appalling than the increased military cooperation and sales between the Government of India and Burma's military regime is evidence that the transfer of military hardware risks violating both European Union and U.S. arms restrictions in place against Burma's military regime. Parts and technologies vital to the manufacture of the ALH were provided by several European companies and two American companies, Aitech Systems, Ltd. and Lord Corporation. It is essential that our government immediately investigate whether or not the inclusion of American parts and technologies in the production of India's ALHs and the potential impending transfer of the ALHs from the Government of India to Burma's brutal military generals violate U.S. export control regulations and the U.S. arms embargo on Burma. The brutality of Burma's generals towards its own people continues to increase. It is obvious to all familiar with the regime's use of forced labor, its systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, its destruction of villages and livelihoods in its efforts to ethnically cleanse Burma of all its ethnic minorities, that the purchase of these military helicopters is for one purpose and one purpose only--strengthening and increasing military attacks against ethnic minority civilians. Already humanitarian aid groups operating in Eastern Burma have noticed a number of areas in which helicopter landing pads are appearing, a sight very new to the landscape of ethnic minority territory. These landing pads will give Burmese generals the ability to transport soldiers quickly and easily into areas where civilians are fleeing. The ethnic minorities fear that the regime plans to increase its attacks against them. The U.S. government must take immediate steps to implement the recommendations outlined in the newly released report, including, but not limited to, commencing negotiations with the Government of India to cease the transfer of Advanced Light Helicopters to Burma's military regime; discontinuing all future defense production cooperation with India that might lead to transfers of embargoed controlled equipment to Burma; attaching to all future licenses for transfers of controlled goods and technology to India a strict and enforceable condition, with penalty clauses prohibiting re-export to states under an embargo to which the original exporting state is party without express governmental permission; and drawing attention to the high likelihood of that military equipment being used by Burma's military to commit ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in violation of international law including international human rights and humanitarian law.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I received a letter today from a bipartisan coalition of family and faith-based organizations, who are concerned that powerful international gambling interests will succeed in negating U.S. laws that curb Internet gambling. I ask unanimous consent to place a copy of this letter in the Record. Probably the most serious avenue of attack mentioned in this letter is H.R. 2046, which would legalize Internet gambling and provide online casinos with exemptions from federal and state laws. Just one year ago, this body voted 317 to 93 in favor of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which went on to be signed into law on October 13, 2006. By enacting UIGEA, we emphatically decided that we would not simply roll over as offshore gambling operators deliberately defied our laws. We would enforce our laws, even when the websites are offshore, by cutting off the flow of money for illegal Internet gambling activities. At the same time, we preserved existing Federal and State gambling laws, including the rights of States to set gambling policy and regulate any gambling operators within their own borders. H.R. 2046 does not repeal UIGEA per se, but that would be its practical effect. The license this legislation would grant to Internet gambling operators serves as an affirmative defense to any prosecution or enforcement action under any other Federal or State law. It brushes aside Federal gambling laws such as the Wire Act, State gambling prohibitions, and State gambling regulatory commissions. The proponents of H.R. 2046 say there is an opt-out for States, but this opt-out is riddled with problems. First, State laws already on the books don't matter--the governor has to certify exactly what is prohibited in that State, and if he or she fails to make that certification within 90 days, then the State becomes open game for Internet gamblers. Not only is it bad policy to ignore laws on the books, it is probably unconstitutional to give the Governor effective unilateral power to set Internet gambling policy for the State. Second, if the State were to allow any form of gambling online, it would be regulated by the Treasury Department, which has no experience in gambling regulation, instead of the highly-experienced State gambling commission. Third, the State opt-out would violate current U.S. trade obligations, so the World Trade Organization could tell the U.S. to drop the opt-out or face stiff trade penalties. The U.S. is currently trying to withdraw its ``obligation'' to free trade in gambling--which the U.S. never intended to make--but the process could take months or years. Until then, the offshore gambling industry could attack the State opt-out in H.R. 2046 in the WTO, as one of their attorneys publicly stated at a Cato Institute forum just last week. Finally, keep in mind that NO State has yet legalized Internet gambling with foreign companies. If all the States opt out according to the laws they already have on the books, and if the opt-outs are not challenged legally, what will the international gambling interests have gained? If nothing, then why are they spending millions on lobbying efforts to pass H.R. 2046? I hope that my colleagues will look past the smokescreen and see that H.R. 2046 could result in the greatest expansion of gambling ever enacted by Congress. August 1, 2007. Dear Member of Congress: As a bipartisan coalition of family and faith-based organizations representing millions of citizens nationwide, we thank you for your efforts to protect families from the dangers of Internet gambling. Last year, Congress took the very valuable step of enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) so that U.S. gambling laws could be better enforced on the Internet. We are concerned, however, about ensuring the integrity of UIGEA in upcoming months. We have three primary concerns: Congressional support for strong UIGEA regulations from the Treasury Department, add list of illegal Internet gambling to FinCEN and OFAC lists, block transactions, create a system for reporting illegal sites to the DOJ (Internet, phone, mail), enforce prosecution of illegal online gambling operations. Your support of UIGEA's integrity and your opposition to contrary legislation. Congressional support for U.S. withdrawal from WTO obligations that jeopardize UIGEA. Internet gambling represents the most invasive and addictive form of gambling in history. Speed, accessibility, availability and anonymity make Internet gambling the perfect storm for gambling addiction. Internet gambling also creates fertile ground for criminal activity and threatens homeland security by potentially funding terrorist activity. More than 230 million Americans access the Internet, many of whom are children and adolescents. Internet gambling extends beyond state borders, beyond democratically enacted laws and is piped directly into millions of homes. Before Congress passed UIGEA, nearly 3,000 online casinos could be accessed instantly with the click of a mouse. Since its passage, UIGEA has severely cut unlawful U.S. profits to foreign gambling interests. Now these Internet casino operations are willing to spend millions of dollars influencing Congress to gain legal access into U.S. homes. In fact, the UC Group (a leading payment-service provider in the U.K.) claims to be ``leading the initiative'' behind Rep. Barney Frank's bill, H.R. 2046. The misinformation campaign is in full swing, and Congress is the target. You should be aware of several bills that threaten the integrity of UIGEA: Rep. Frank's bill H.R. 2046--far-reaching legalization of Internet gambling, providing online casinos with exemptions from federal and state laws. Rep. Wexler's bill H.R. 2610--exempts poker and ``games of skill'' from UIGEA. Rep. McDermott's bill H.R. 2607--licenses and taxes Internet casinos. Foreign gambling interests are also pressuring the World Trade Organization (WTO) to force the U.S. to legalize Internet gambling. They claim that the U.S. is obligated to legalize gambling because it committed to free trade in ``recreational services,'' and a WTO panel agreed. Now the U.S. is seeking to amend its trade commitments to make clear that Congress never intended to turn over to the WTO its right to set gambling policy. Congress should return the favor to the U.S. Trade Representative by supporting these negotiations. Again, thank you for your time and service in preserving families. We hope for your ongoing support of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in the upcoming months. Sincerely, Tom Minnery, Senior Vice President, Focus on the Family Action. Guy C. Clark, Chairman, National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling. Gary Bauer, President, American Values. Roberta Combs, President, Christian Coalition of America. Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder, Eagle Forum. Tom McClusky, Vice President for Government Affairs, Family Research Council. Keith Wiebe, President, American Association of Christian Schools. Donald E. Wildmon, Executive Director and Founder, American Family Association.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which shares jurisdiction over the SCHIP bill, H.R. 3162, I would like to express my frustration with the way this bill has been rammed through the legislative process. Since January, we had only one hearing on the SCHIP program. We did not have a legislative hearing on H.R. 3162, which is supposed to be the Democrats' signature piece of health care legislation this Congress, no markup in subcommittee, and it was written in secret with no input from our side of the aisle. In fact, the text of the bill was not even provided to members of the committee until 11:33 the night before the full committee markup was supposed to take place. Madam Speaker, bringing a bill with over $200 billion in authorized spending to the floor without allowing the bill to go through the proper legislative process is simply poor governance.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on one important failure of this legislation that I think the pro-lifers on the other side of the aisle would be interested in. Since 2002, the present administration has granted the States the option of providing SCHIP coverage to the child before birth, the unborn child, prenatal care and other health services for the unborn child and the pregnant mother. Unfortunately, the bill offered today would override current regulation and extend coverage in the name of the pregnant woman only. My amendment to codify the words ``unborn child'' was disallowed, not made in order last night. Protecting only the pregnant woman could lead to a greater number of abortions. It would make the woman eligible for all publicly-funded services, including State-funded elective abortions. In States with Medicaid expansion programs, this could increase the number of women eligible for free abortions, thus promoting more abortions of unborn children in the name of children's health. This bill's language essentially classifies the pregnant woman herself. It does not make sense.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the good news coming out of Iraq. I realize the Democratic majority would like to spend most of our time talking about failure in Iraq. Indeed, that is what we have done during the first 7 months of Congress. However, the new strategy in Iraq and the new general in charge are making real progress on the ground. The Iraqi people are beginning to stand up for the safety and security of their neighborhoods. A recent story in the Times of London states the increased presence of U.S. forces in the Doura neighborhood in South Baghdad, ``is encouraging insiders to overcome their fear and divulge what they know. Convoys of U.S. soldiers are working the rubble-strewn streets day and night, knocking on doors, speaking to locals and following up on leads on possible insurgent hideouts.'' Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the members of the Armed Forces who have given their lives, we owe it to the Iraqi people, to give this new strategy a chance to succeed, and we need to talk about their successes.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, July 22, 2007 is the third anniversary of the U.S. Congress's declaration that the tragedy in Darfur truly is a genocide. That declaration, as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's declaration, was intended to clearly delineate to the international community the true extent of the devastating death, destruction, rape and other human rights violations. Over the years, my colleagues and I have given a number of speeches about Sudan and specifically about Darfur. Yet, with all the proof that NGOs, journalists, and humanitarian workers have presented, the attacks and atrocities against the people of Darfur continue. Clearly the abusive regime in Khartoum does not care about stopping the suffering, otherwise the Janjaweed militias would not be able to wreak havoc wherever they go. A recent report by Refugees International details the fact that rape is ``an integral part of the pattern of violence that the government of Sudan is inflicting upon the targeted ethnic groups of Darfur.'' Listen to those words--that means the Janjaweed, under the orders of their masters in Khartoum, are deliberately raping the women to impregnate them and ``purify'' them racially. The trauma imposed on the women of Darfur is unthinkable, yet reportedly is simply the implementation of a policy. What kind of government has a policy to ethnically cleanse, via rape, their peoples? Not a government that should have any power. Madam Speaker, it is beyond comprehension that when the international community clearly knows that genocide is occurring, there would not be enough concern or political will to come down hard on Khartoum to end the death and destruction. The fact that we must continue to raise the reality of genocide in Darfur means that we, the U.S. and the international community, have not done enough. The international community has no excuse, because we know what is happening. There is no hidden agenda--the Sudanese government and their brutal militias have made their goals clear. The real question is--does the international community care enough to go after the Khartoum government and its puppet militias? To the people of Darfur, we stand in solidarity with you.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Pence amendment. Planned Parenthood claims to work to reduce abortions, but happens to be the number one abortion provider in this country. This raises an obvious question: Why are taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize the largest abortion supplier in the United States? Planned Parenthood clinics receive funding in the name of their family planning services; however, there are many clinics in which family planning and abortion services are co-located in the same building, share a common set of basic resources, out one door and into the other. Abortion services generate more net revenue when clinics can rely on Federal dollars to pay for lighting, heating, building maintenance, and even rent. Planned Parenthood receives a recordbreaking $305 million in taxpayer funding, and they made record profits last year. And what did they do with those record profits last year? Planned Parenthood performed 265,000 abortions, the most ever in a year. I urge my colleagues to oppose this Federal backdoor subsidy of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider, and support the Pence amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am sure we have all seen the images on the evening news and in this week's papers. Cots laid out in the Capitol's hallways to provide for an all-night debate on Iraq. Oh, the plight of the modern day United States Senator. What a decision to make. Sleep on a leather couch in a Capitol hideaway, or bunk up in the LBJ Room on a turned-down rollaway. We appreciate these good Senators' tough sacrifice, but how about our troops in the field? While Senators are trying to get some shut-eye between rhetorical battles on the Senate floor, our soldiers are getting no sleep while dodging real bullets in combat. Consider one 22-year-old Marine's comment to a reporter about life in Iraq--``If I get five minutes to close my eyes, I take it.'' Another Staff Sgt. said ``The 45-minute cat-nap is worth a million bucks. Getting some is better than none.'' Let the debate go forward, but spare our troops who are sleeping in the sand and dirt the indignity of this political theater.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I hosted a screening of a documentary entitled, ``India's Hidden Slavery,'' a film about contemporary slavery in India among the 250 million Dalits or untouchables. The caste system has at the top the Brahmin or priestly class, the ruling class. That includes politicians. At the very bottom, not even considered a caste because they're too low, the Dalits. Today, in the world's largest democracy, an unknown hidden system exists with people without basic human rights. In contrast to the economic progress in some sectors in Indian society, below the surface is a society still racked by caste, with millions suffering and held hostage to a social structure that reinforces segregation, poverty, injustice and slavery. Recently, village leaders just condemned to death a couple that married outside their caste. While the government of India has taken some small steps to outlaw the caste system, in reality, it permeates every aspect of life there. I commend India for its economic progress, but I urge government leaders to ensure that all people in India have basic human rights, and especially the 250 million Dalits.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, and I would like to thank the gentlelady for yielding time and thank her for her leadership in bringing this issue to the attention of the House. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 426, which recognizes 2007 as the Year of the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in Colombia, and offer support for efforts to ensure that the internally displaced people of Colombia receive the assistance and protection they need to rebuild their lives successfully. I have worked with internally displaced persons around the world. These people are not refugees. They do not flee or leave their country; they are within their country displaced internally. And their stories are similar. People love their countries. They do not want to flee. But, because of circumstances, they are forced to leave their homes or their towns. According to the United Nations, at the beginning of the year 2006, there were estimated to be 23.7 million IDPs, internally displaced people, around the world. That is a little over the size of the population of the entire State of Texas. IDPs in Colombia frequently get caught in the conflict between the guerillas, the paramilitaries, and government troops. It is important that this body support and encourage IDPs around the world and today, in particular, in Colombia. IDPs deserve recognition. They deserve the assistance and resources as they seek to rebuild their lives. If you travel to these countries and meet with IDPs, many times you will find them despondent, despairing, saying, ``Why don't we get the assistance that the U.N. and the U.S. give to refugees''? We need to recognize their plights, and I commend my colleagues, Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their leadership on bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of the American people believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. This most basic social institution has been recognized by every culture and every serious religion in the history of mankind. The Goode amendment protects and strengthens this important union between a man and a woman, and I rise in strong support of it. The underlying bill before us today strips a 15-year Federal policy ensuring that American taxpayer dollars are not used to fund domestic partnership benefits. In defense of this longstanding policy, the President's senior advisors have made clear that they will recommend a veto if the bill reaches the President's desk in its current form, with this item in it. Mr. Chairman, Federal funds have never been used for domestic partnership benefits in the District of Columbia. If this bill is not amended, the Federal Government will be forced, for the first time ever, to offer many of the same benefits for domestic partnership as it offers for marriage. I oppose using government funds to promote nonmarital partnerships because I have tremendous respect for the traditional family. I believe that traditional marriage is the foundation of the family, and families are the foundation of healthy society. The Goode amendment protects these vital foundations which we, as the representatives of the people, should support. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. It clearly defines the difference in the two parties here in the Congress. Please vote ``yes'' on the Goode amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, some on the other side of the aisle made it a habit to refer to the last session of Congress as a do-nothing Congress. But it seems our friends on the other side are trying to outdo the do-nothingness they complained about all last year. First they clamped down on the House rules to expedite their so- called 6 for '06 agenda. Almost none of that became law. Then they delayed an emergency troop funding bill for more than 100 days while our troops in harm's way waited for the resources they needed to do their job. Now they seem intent on playing another round of chicken with the President over this year's appropriations bills. When you throw in hidden earmarks, slush funds, budget gimmicks and the largest tax increase in American history, it's no wonder the Democrat Congress is currently enjoying its lowest approval ratings ever. Do-nothing Congress? Perhaps now we should say do-less-than- nothing Congress.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. PITTS. That's correct.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. David Weldon, 2 minutes.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't know I was going to get a biblical lesson here, but I would just ask the man rhetorically, is abstinence biblical? Is faithfulness biblical? That's what we're speaking on behalf of. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska who is a member of the Africa Subcommittee, Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. PITTS. And the President could remove the A and the B, and just have the C. And when Ambassador Dybul was asked if any of the countries wanted waivers, they all said no.