Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in conclusion that, as we all know, Dolly the sheep was a cloned animal. Let me remind you that Dolly the sheep was the 277th try. There were 276 before her who were defective and deformed and died. In fact, the history of cloning is replete with defects, deformity and death; and as they seek to create little human embryos for the purposes of research and experimentation and harvesting and death, we should remember this fact. The researcher in South Korea that failed to identify what he was doing, Dr. Hwang, and his team obtained 2,000 eggs from over 100 women that they paid for their cloning attempts. Human cloning exploits women. It ushers in an era of eugenics. It embraces a utilitarian view of humans. It involves the creation of little human embryos for research experiments. And for these reasons and all the reasons that are stated, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the attached report describing the attacks by the brutal military dictatorship against the ethnic peoples of Burma. The situation facing the internally displaced is dire. The international community needs to step up its assistance to refugees and displaced persons. In addition, the international community must act immediately to stop the ethnic cleansing and other horrific acts by the dictatorship against the people of Burma. Refugees International--Burma: Military Offensive Displacing Thousands of Civilians The worst Burmese military offensive in 10 years has displaced at least 27,000 people in eastern Burma's Karen State since November 2005. The displaced are civilians who have been targeted by the army and are living in exceptionally vulnerable conditions. An estimated three million people have been forced to migrate in Burma as a result of conflict, persecution, human rights abuses, and repressive government measures that prevent people from earning a livelihood. Instead of fulfilling its responsibility to protect its citizens, the Government of Burma, known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is the biggest perpetrator of violations in the country. Ethnic groups, comprising one-third of Burma's 52 million people, have borne the brunt of the government's repressive policies. The pattern of the Burmese military or the Tatmadaw has been to eliminate all opposition and take full control of ethnic areas. As part of its strategy to curb the support of ethnic insurgent armies, it targets civilians it perceives as backers of the insurgent groups. In the course of Tatmadaw operations at least 3,000 villages have been destroyed along the eastern Burma border since 1996. Villagers have been forced to flee to hiding sites in jungles, move to government-controlled relocation sites, or travel to relatively more secure ceasefire locations. Today Burma is estimated to have the worst internal displacement crisis in Asia. More than 500,000 civilians are displaced in eastern Burma, with those in hiding being the most vulnerable. People unable to care for themselves and their families have fled to Burma's neighboring countries of Bangladesh, China, India, Malaysia and Thailand in search of asylum. Burma's refugee crisis has a regional impact and the number of refugees from the country is believed to be more than one million. As the military takes control of new territory in ethnic areas, it initiates development projects and exploits natural resources, which displace more civilians. The forced migration of civilians is ongoing even in ethnic states, such as Mon and Kachin, where political leaders have signed ceasefire agreements with the central authorities. According to a Burmese asylum seeker interviewed by Refugees International in Thailand, ``The outside world thinks that just because a cease fire has been signed between the Mon and the SPDC, it is safe for us to live in Burma. But we continue to face abuses on a daily basis. The military confiscated all my orchards and my family could barely survive. We still tried to stay but had to leave when the military tried to recruit my teenage son.'' The Karen National Union, the indigenous political leadership in Karen State, has not entered into a ceasefire agreement with the SPDC and conflict and displacement are not new phenomena there. However, the intensity and spread of the Tatmadaw offensive in recent months are estimated to be the worst in more than a decade. The attack is linked to the military's attempt to consolidate its control over parts of Karen State and the districts of Toungoo, Papun and Nyaunglebin have been particularly hard-hit by the offensive. According to a community-based organization assisting the internally displaced, the recent attacks differ from previous ones in that the military did not withdraw during the 2006 rainy season but continued to attack the same areas repeatedly. In order to protect themselves, Karen communities have been trying to establish early warning systems. Villagers are constantly on watch to be able to anticipate Tatmadaw attacks and whenever possible, the Karen ethnic army has been warning villagers ahead of an attack so they can go into hiding. At present there remains a lack of an adequate number of communication tools for advance warning. The military has planted a large number of landmines in and around villages so people are unable to go beyond a certain area, and at the time of harvesting many do not have access to their crops. In some parts of Karen State the army has set rice fields on fire. According to the estimates of a community-based organization assisting the internally displaced, 25,000 people have lost their harvest for the entire year, and in Lerdoh Township alone, 2,800 civilians are believed to have been taken away from their villages and fields by the Tatmadaw to relocation sites where they are being forced to dig trenches and build fencing. Since 2006, the military has also placed a prohibition on trading in some areas of Karen State and prevented villagers from selling or buying certain products around harvest time. After harvest time, villagers are allowed to sell their products, but at half the normal price and only to the military, contributing to food insecurity. Besides food, the displaced are in urgent need of shelter and medicines. The displaced in Karen State are being assisted largely through cross-border assistance, coming from agencies based in Thailand, and a few community-based organizations inside Burma. This aid is helping people cope with their situation and preventing large numbers from fleeing to Thailand as refugees. Although in recent years donors have allocated more funds for aid to internally displaced people, both for cross-border operations and those inside Burma, the number of vulnerable people has gone up significantly with the latest offensive in Karen State and it is critical that donors respond accordingly. In terms of medical assistance, Karen internally displaced people are relying largely on traditional curative techniques or on mobile teams, back pack health workers, and Karen medical units who may be able to access them only after navigating their way through heavily militarized territory. Organizations based in Thailand and Burma that are assisting the internally displaced from across the border and inside the country have improved communications in recent months, but there remains a need to strengthen information sharing on the activities being undertaken by both sides. Many of those displaced in the recent attacks in Karen State who have been able to reach the Thai-Burma border are living in settlements on the Burma side. One of these, the Ei Tu Hta camp, set up in April 2006, is home to 3,000 persons mostly from Toungoo district. Approximately 5,000 recently displaced Karen have also crossed the border into Thailand. Some of them have entered refugee camps, are recognized as asylum seekers, and are awaiting approval from the Provincial Admission Boards, the Thai Government's entities for processing new arrivals. This has largely been the case in Mae Hong Son Province. In Tak Province's Mae La camp, however, none of the new arrivals are recognized and they are living unofficially in the camp. The Thai Government is concerned that recent efforts to resettle Burmese refugees in third countries is drawing recent arrivals to camps. The Governor of Tak Province has announced that no food or accommodation would be made available to new arrivals in the camps in that province. Further, the Provincial Admission Boards are not fully functional in each of the provinces, and there remains a void for processing new arrivals in certain areas. The Burmese internal displacement and refugee crises are linked to the regime's policy of targeting civilians. All regional and local initiatives to urge the SPDC to stop attacking civilians and protect its people have failed. The non-binding Security Council resolution introduced by the U.S. in January 2007, which included a call to the SPDC to cease attacks on the country's ethnic minorities, was vetoed by China and Russia. Until such time that all members of the UN Security Council acknowledge that the SPDC must be held accountable, and develop a united approach to address the government's failure to protect its people, the worst internal displacement crisis in Asia will persist. Refugees International, therefore, recommends that: The Burmese military immediately halt all attacks on civilians. The UN Security Council members reach consensus on a strategy to pressure the SPDC to stop its abuse of civilians and hold it accountable for its failure to protect Burma's people. Donors support initiatives to assist internally displaced people by agencies doing cross-border work and agencies operating inside Burma, with funding directed to the most vulnerable. Donors support initiatives to enhance IDP protection through early warning systems. Agencies based inside Burma and organizations operating out of Thailand continue to improve coordination and collaboration through regular meetings and information sharing forums. The Government of Thailand allow new asylum seekers from Burma official access to all camps and ensure that the Provincial Admission Boards are functioning consistently so the new arrivals can be processed.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in an environment of unlimited demands and limited resources, our constituents expect us to make tough choices and set national priorities with their hard-earned tax dollars. The Democrats' Intelligence Authorization bill that we will vote on this week fails to do this. Consider the priorities it sets. This bill makes deep cuts in the resources requested by the administration for important intelligence- gathering operations. Meanwhile, it also calls for the Director of National Intelligence to submit a National Intelligence Estimate to Congress on global warming. In a post-9/11 environment, should we really be steering our intelligence community away from intelligence gathering so that they can start studying global warming? Experts from the right and the left say that our ability to prevent another attack on America relies heavily on our intelligence capabilities. Mr. Speaker, let's fully fund our intelligence community and not distract it from fulfilling its core mission, to protect Americans from attack.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle is going to great lengths to make the case for retreat in Iraq. It seems they'll even ignore the facts if it helps their case. For some time now, the other side has been saying that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror but a distraction from it. Mr. Speaker, the latest video released by al Qaeda's number two operative clears that up. In this latest rant calling for our destruction, Ayman al Zawahiri calls the violence in Iraq a jihad. He optimistically states that the situation in Iraq ``is moving from the stage of defeat of the crusader invaders to the stage of consolidating a Mujahid Islamic Emirate.'' He goes on to proclaim that this victory for the terrorists will ``raise the banner of Jihad.'' Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. And if we are unwilling to defeat them there, where exactly will we do so? Mr. Speaker, when we are honest about who we are fighting in Iraq, the implication becomes clear: We must win in Iraq.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as we debate our policy in Iraq, perhaps it's useful to consider a lesson from history. In all the media coverage of the war supplemental debate, a shameful anniversary in our history slipped by, mostly unnoticed. Last week marked the anniversary of Congress's decision to cut off military funding for our involvement in Southeast Asia. The result, as predicted, was genocide; 3 million innocent people slaughtered in Cambodia's killing fields. Mr. Speaker, similar warnings exist today in Iraq. Observers from across the political spectrum say a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could very likely result in a region-wide bloodbath. No one wants to see this, yet withdrawal is what many in this body are pushing for. Mr. Speaker, before we act, let's remember the lesson of history. And we all want our troops to come home safely, but we need to win first and then come home. Defeat, surrender and genocide are not acceptable alternatives. And Mr. Speaker, as a personal note, I'd like to say before I end, welcome to the world to little Joseph Thomas Offutt, a new grandson, namesake born earlier this week, 9 pounds, 14 ounces. You've brought great joy and happiness to our family. May you enjoy a long, good life.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, anyone who was alive at the time will always remember the collapse of the Berlin Wall. With the Soviet bloc crumbling, the western world rejoiced as freedom spread to populations once thought hopelessly in the grip of Communist oppressors. There was reason to believe that the Soviets' brutal form of tyranny was over forever. Unfortunately, recent actions seem to be giving new life to old Communist ghosts. Police squads crushing the Kremlin's dissenters, advocates of freedom and transparency silenced, cultural figures detained. Mr. Speaker, the recent backsliding in Russia should be cause for alarm for all freedom loving people. As the Kremlin's power expands, freedom for the Russian people shrinks. This was wrong during the Cold War and it is wrong now. It is time that the free nations of the world take a stand against this trend and start demanding more from Mr. Putin and Russia's leaders.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers; therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for yielding and for her principled leadership on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership on this and the preceding resolution, and for his leadership on the issue of human rights in general around the world. Madam Speaker, with this resolution, we rightly honor one of humanity's great heroes. William Wilberforce was a man of integrity, a man of courage, a man of faith, and a man of principle. And he used these qualities, Madam Speaker, to forever change the world for the better. He is someone that each of us in this Chamber can relate to and draw inspiration from. In a legislative body of 435 Members, it can be difficult to make progress on the issues we care about. Indeed, the odds sometimes appear insurmountable. But the life and accomplishments of William Wilberforce are proof that individuals of character truly can change the world. Wilberforce was himself a member of an elected legislative body. He was first elected to the British Parliament more than 220 years ago. In his day, the human slave trade dominated England's economy. As a result, the interests of the slave traders were firmly entrenched in the halls of Parliament. Arguments used to justify the sale and trade of human beings and the horrific injustices that occurred in that trade were commonplace in that day. But William Wilberforce refused to accept these arguments. He knew that slavery was an unspeakable injustice, and he made it his object to end it. This conviction would lead him on a decades-long effort to end slavery in England. It was a journey full of setbacks and disappointments. Again and again, he introduced his bill in parliament to end the British slave trade. Again and again it was soundly defeated, and again and again he was ostracized by his peers. For years this went on, and the discouragement grew. But all the while, Wilberforce's call to conscience was slowly winning over hearts and minds. His willingness to stand for what was right and fight what was wrong was being noticed by his colleagues. And after 20 years of perseverance, 20 years of unbending principle, 20 years of standing for justice in the face of daunting odds, Wilberforce at last tasted success. On February 23, 1807, Parliament voted, and on March 25, the King signed the bill that outlawed the British slave trade, a move that was once thought impossible. And 26 years later, Wilberforce was informed a few days before his death that the House of Commons had finally voted to abolish slavery altogether in the British Empire. Madam Speaker, throughout this year, we celebrate the 200th anniversary of this tremendous accomplishment. And as part of this celebration, a number of efforts are underway to inform people of this often-forgotten hero of humanity and his colleagues who worked to end in slavery. We could mention others, like John Newton, who has already been mentioned. John Newton was a former slave trader who wrote the hymn ``Amazing Grace,'' whose testimony before Parliament was so influential. We could mention John Wesley, who a week before he died in 1791, wrote William Wilberforce about American slavery which he called ``the vilest form of slavery known to mankind.'' We could mention Wilberforce's direct influence on John Quincy Adams, and John Quincy Adams' direct influence on Abraham Lincoln. There are many people who could be mentioned, but this resolution before us today is part of the celebration of the life and accomplishments of William Wilberforce, and are certainly worthy of recognition. Madam Speaker, I would submit this is not merely an effort to look back and give credit where credit is due, it is also a call to fight modern-day injustice. Sadly, every generation must confront evil in its own time, and ours is no different. Around the world, thousands of people are deprived of their basic human rights every single day. Good men and women of this world have a moral duty to fight these modern-day injustices. The U.S. State Department estimates that approximately 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked each year into slavery, into the sex industry, other slave-like labor conditions. In South Asia, an entire class of people numbering in the millions are considered to be ``untouchable,'' and as a result, they are denied basic services and subjected to terrible living conditions. Horrible human rights abuses continue in places like Burma and Sudan and China and many others. These are just a few examples. The list could go on. Madam Speaker, as we honor William Wilberforce, may we also be inspired today to educate ourselves and others about modern-day injustice, inspired to not turn a blind eye to millions of people worldwide who need our help; and inspired, Madam Speaker, to act. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the former chairman, current ranking member, of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health and a great champion of human rights today.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the American public deserves to have all the facts about the Democrats' $3 trillion budget resolution. On the surface, it looks great, more money for program after program, all the while balancing the budget. If it sounds too good to be true, it's because it is. This budget funds a wish list of spending with so-called reserve funds. On paper, these reserve funds appear to designate funding for billions of dollars in Federal spending. But the fact is they are empty, little more than a clever gimmick to help balance the books, a shell game. In order to fund them, offsets would have to be found elsewhere or taxes would have to be raised. Since their plan doesn't include offsets, that leaves only one option, tax hikes. In other words, the Democrats are asking Americans to tighten their belts so that Uncle Sam can loosen his. Congress has serious fiscal challenges to solve, but tax hikes and budget gimmicks are not the right answer.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, some Democrats like to boast about all the increased spending in their budget plan, but they are less eager to discuss how all this new spending is going to be paid for. That is because it is paid for with the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $400 billion over 5 years. Mr. Speaker, while some Democrats on Capitol Hill may not understand the impact this tax hike would have, my constituents most certainly do. Several have written in to let me know how it would affect their families. One woman said it would mean less money for vital health care costs. Another parent said it would hurt her ability to pay for after-school activities for her kids. Someone else said more money for Washington would mean less money for charitable causes. And one single parent told me it would mean, ``less food on our table.'' Mr. Speaker, the proposed tax increase would affect real families in real ways. Let's balance the budget by reining in spending, not by taking more money from hardworking American families.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion has been a long time coming. Opinion polls have long shown overwhelming opposition to this gruesome and horrific procedure, and in response, Congress acted to ban partial birth abortion, passing the ban two times during the Clinton administration only to have it vetoed by President Clinton both times. In 2003, Congress passed the ban again with bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and this time it was signed into law by President Bush. Unable to win through the democratic process, proponents of abortion- on-demand took to the courts, and for years their efforts delayed a final decision, leaving unborn children without protection from this gruesome procedure. Thankfully, yesterday's decision ends the uncertainty, and this ruling protects America's unborn children from a barbaric, grisly procedure that has no place in a civilized society. Mr. Speaker, this is a win for the sanctity of human life and a win for American democracy.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, throughout this year we will celebrate the work to end one of humanity's worst acts of injustice. It was 200 years ago that William Wilberforce and his friends finally saw success in their attempt to end the British slave trade after 20 years of failed attempts. To mark the anniversary of this tremendous accomplishment, a number of efforts are under way to inform people about this often forgotten hero of humanity. A wonderful movie about the life of Wilberforce entitled ``Amazing Grace'' has been released in theaters. Another documentary on his life and efforts, entitled ``The Better Hour,'' is expected to air on public television this fall. I have introduced a resolution in this body honoring his life and accomplishments. Yesterday, a contest was announced for high school students challenging them to follow Wilberforce's example by pursuing efforts to end modern-day slavery trafficking in men, women and children, which still plagues the world. All of these events remind us that individuals of character and integrity really can change the world by fighting to end injustice and exploitation. That truth inspired Wilberforce in his day, and it should continue to inspire us today.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, in all my years of public service, I have never had a constituent tell me that they are taxed too little. Whether it is income taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, car taxes or some other tax, Americans give plenty of money to the government. But for House Democrats, it seems that is not enough. How else do you explain a budget resolution that proposes the largest tax increase in American history by letting all of the tax cuts expire? Their budget plan will deliver a hard blow to working families in our vibrant economy. By bringing back the marriage penalty, 23 million taxpayers will see their tax bill go up. By cutting the child tax credit in half, 31 million taxpayers will pay an average of $850 more a year. In all, House Democrats are asking hardworking Americans to fork over an extra $400 billion over 5 years. Madam Speaker, the other side will try to sell this budget, but don't be fooled, this is tax-and-spend politics at its worst, and it should be rejected.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week politicians in Congress are trying to use our military troops as a bargaining chip for their own pork barrel and domestic projects. Some of these projects are designed to buy votes of wavering Members. The bill includes such things as $25 million for spinach subsidies, $74 million for peanut storage, $120 million for the shrimp industry, money for extra office space for the House of Representatives. This bill ought to focus on our troops. Congress is telling the President you cannot fund body armor for our troops in combat until you give us more money for our pet projects and pork barrel. Those tactics are fiscally irresponsible and wrong. Let's pass a clean emergency spending bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, the House is scheduled to take up an emergency supplemental spending bill to fund our troops in Iraq. But the other side has worked themselves into a dilemma over this bill to pander to their left-wing base. The Democrats have included language in the bill that sets an arbitrary date for withdrawing our troops, whether we have achieved victory or not. While that pleases the far left, the more moderate Democrats are rightfully concerned about congressional micromanagement of the war. So what is the solution? Load the bill up with pork to pressure Members to vote for it. At last count, the supposed emergency supplemental now contains more than $20 billion in unrelated spending. I think most Americans agree that the money they want to spend on spinach subsidies and peanut storage would be better spent on body armor and Humvees for our troops. Madam Speaker, this bill fails both our troops in combat and the taxpayer here at home. Let's stop playing politics with emergency war funding, Madam Speaker. Let's have a clean supplemental.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, common sense says the closer you are to the problem, the better you are able to address it. Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind seems to say the opposite. It says that if you are a bureaucrat in Washington, you understand the needs of public education across America better than anyone else does. Educators, however, know that that is not the case. After meeting with dozens of teachers, principals and administrators in my district, I am convinced that it is time to give our States a choice. That is why I am supporting the A-PLUS Act introduced last week. The bill would allow States to opt out of the burdensome regulations attached to No Child Left Behind; it would let local leaders decide how best to spend their Federal education dollars; and it would allow the challenges we face in public education to be addressed by those who understand them best, local educators. I urge support for the A-PLUS Act

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has been calling for prompt action at the U.N. Security Council to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Burma. Unfortunately, other member nations have been slow to take up the call. One European nation even suggested recently that the world should wait for the situation in Burma to become urgent and acute before we take action. Mr. Speaker, Burma reportedly has close to a million IDPs, internally displaced people. Isn't that urgent? Over 3,000 villages have been brutally destroyed by the military dictatorship. Isn't that an acute situation? The latest story out of Burma tells of four teenage girls brutally raped and then thrown into prison by the military rulers, more evidence of their systematic sexual violence there. Isn't that an urgent problem? Mr. Speaker, there has been enough talk and enough delay. It is time for the world to take action and end the humanitarian crisis in Burma.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, for years the Federal courts have drifted towards judicial activism, and nowhere is this dangerous trend more fully embraced than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Based in San Francisco and covering nine western States, the Ninth Circuit has given us some of the more outrageous decisions in recent memory. These are the folks who say the words ``under God'' are unconstitutional in our pledge. Fortunately for our Nation and our Constitution this mostly Democrat-appointed court isn't the last defense against judicial activism. The U.S. Supreme Court regularly reviews the Ninth Circuit's rulings, and not surprisingly, the high court often overturns them. In fact, in this term the Supreme Court has overturned every Ninth Circuit ruling it has taken up. If you break it out by the votes of the individual Justices, the score is 67 votes to overturn and just five votes to uphold. These are definitely second-string back benchers. It is time they begin interpreting the Constitution, not rewriting it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, our former Vice President, Al Gore, hasn't gotten so much attention since he invented the Internet. But behind the Oscars, behind the left's unending praise, behind the fawning media coverage lies the truth. And, unfortunately, that truth is pretty inconvenient. It seems that one of the biggest violators of Gore's own environmental doctrines is Al Gore himself. While he jets around on the global warming celebrity circuit telling everyone else how to live a greener life, his own home in Tennessee is consuming nearly 20 times the energy of the average American home. Gore defends this conspicuous consumption by purchasing carbon emission offsets. But he buys those offsets from a company he helped create and he currently chairs. Mr. Speaker, global warming may or may not be an inconvenient truth. But apparently for Al Gore, practicing what you preach is the most inconvenient thing of all.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, no town likes a scandal, real or invented, more than Washington, DC, and the latest news involving Scooter Libby has the Beltway crowd abuzz. Madam Speaker, if Scooter Libby broke the law, he should be held to account. But with all the attention being paid to this scandal, I can't help but think of the double standard that seems to be at play here. Scooter Libby is being prosecuted for the exact same offense that ensnared former President Bill Clinton, lying under oath, perjury and obstruction of justice. But the same people today who are calling for Libby's head were insisting back then that Bill Clinton's offense was no big deal. And the hypocrisy doesn't end there. Where was the liberal outrage when Sandy Berger was caught destroying classified documents and received a slap on the wrist? What about sweetheart land deals or refrigerated cash? Madam Speaker, the American ideal is equal justice under the law. Let's enforce the law, and let's do so equally, regardless of politics.