Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today we will debate and vote on an issue of critical importance to our society: marriage. The issue is whether we will stand idly by as a few unelected judges redefine the family for us, or if we will take a stand and say enough is enough. The best home for kids is with their mom and dad. Children cannot do better than that, and we should not try to redefine marriage. Unfortunately, some claim that this is an issue for the States. Indeed, it is if that is what was happening. It is not. Activist courts are circumventing the States in order to make this happen. We would never debate it. The States would never debate it. The American people would never debate. That is how the activist groups and the activist judges want it. States rights are meaningless if judges ultimately make the decisions. Mr. Speaker, this House should pass the marriage protection amendment and send it to the State legislatures for their ratification so the courts do not become the final maker of family policy. Kids do best with a mom and dad.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, marriage is a universal human institution. It always has been in all societies. But marriage in the United States has been under attack in recent years. And the future of marriage really does matter. Regardless of where we look, we have seen a gradual weakening of the institution of family that historically we have relied on to raise kids. And while marriage has taken a beating from divorce and other factors, the statistics still show that the best home for kids is still with a mom and a dad who are married. This debate is really about what is best for our children. Children living with their mom and dad are safer, children living with their mom and dad are less likely to be abused or neglected, and children living with their mom and dad have fewer health problems and engage in fewer risky behaviors than their peers. These children are more likely to do well in school. They are better off economically and display increased ability to adapt to changing circumstances than peers not living with their mom and dad. Data shows children who do not have the benefit of mom and dad have unique challenges they would not face if their parents were married and living at home. And do not try to tell me that people who believe children need moms and dads are bigots. Do not try to tell me that people who believe in moral absolutes are guilty of moral bigotry. We are here to protect our kids. We are here because marriage is healthy for our children. When marriage ceases to be seen as a means to bring people together for the sake of children, marriage suffers; and when marriage suffers, children pay the price. Marriage is important because kids need a mom and a dad. History shows that when one aspect of marriage is damaged, the entire institution suffers. We need to protect marriage by passing this amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to share with my colleagues that Ambassador Idriss Jazairy of Algeria will be leaving us soon at the end of a very successful tour of duty in the United States. It has been a privilege working with this gentleman as Algeria's ambassador to the United States for the past 4 years. His eloquent professionalism, great confidence, and his deep care for his family and country have all been reflected in his life and service here. Ambassador Jazairy is a true diplomat. He builds bridges and facilitates reconciliation. He has been an eloquent spokesman for his country and the causes of peace and goodwill in the world. He, indeed, is what one would call a peacemaker. He represents his nation's interests with great dignity and has been a wonderful man to work with and call a friend. We will miss him. Mr. Speaker, I wish the ambassador the very best as he begins his new tour of duty in Geneva as an ambassador to the United Nations, and hope our paths will cross soon.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, CBS has publicly apologized for airing the story on President Bush's National Guard service which relied on fraudulent documents. The fallout from this story will be felt for a long time. CBS has discredited itself as a news organization. Some were surprised to learn that the man who produced those forged documents, Bill Burkett, was in contact with the Kerry campaign. A series of e-mails has surfaced showing that Burkett spoke with Max Cleland, an adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign about assisting the Democrats with a counter attack on Bush. Also, a senior adviser to Kerry, Joe Lockhart, said that on the advice of CBS producer Mary Mapes, he spoke with Burkett about Vietnam and the Presidential campaign shortly before the piece aired. Lockhart's role in this attack is particularly disturbing. Fraudulent political attacks by anyone are reprehensible. Joe Lockhart is talented and intelligent, but I believe he should excuse himself from the Kerry campaign.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an important event in my district coming up on Wednesday, September 29, an event I would have been eager to attend but for my duties here in the Capitol on that important session day. On that day, residents and staff of sixteen not-for-profit Continuing Care Retirement Communities in my district will gather together for a ceremonial joint signing of a pledge to participate in Quality First, a nationwide, profession-wide effort to ``raise the bar'' on quality and on achieving a process of continuous improvement. These sixteen communities, large and small, constitute L.A.S.S., which stands for Lancaster Area Senior Services. Together, they serve more than 10,000 seniors and 7,000 employees and have made a commitment to work together to explore ways to address trends and services that will enhance the quality of life for their residents. Part of that commitment was the decision to take part in Quality First. All 16 members of L.A.S.S. are also members of PANPHA, their 300+ member state association of nonprofit housing and service providers, and of AAHSA, their national Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. AAHSA launched Quality First in 2002, along with other provider associations, to make a commitment to earning public trust and to helping older adults and their families live to their fullest potential. Participation in Quality First is a way to prove to a doubting public, a critical media and a skeptical legislature that the profession is committed to quality and constant quality improvement. The AAHSA/PANPHA version of Quality First to which the L.A.S.S. members have committed includes 10 Elements of Quality: commitment; governance accountability; leading-edge care and services; community involvement; continuous quality improvement; human resources development; consumer-friendly information; consumer participation; research findings and education; and public trust and consumer confidence. They in turn are based on seven core principles: continuous quality assurance and quality improvement; public disclosure and accountability; patient/resident and family rights; workforce excellence; public input and community involvement; ethical practices; and financial stewardship. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the boards, trustees, and executive staff of the L.A.S.S. communities on their decision to participate in Quality First. As I indicated earlier, it is unfortunate that I cannot attend the commemoration, but I am pleased to be able to mark the event to my colleagues by way of these remarks. The continuing care retirement communities comprising Lancaster Area Senior Services are: Brethren Village, Calvary Fellowship Homes, Ephrata Manor, Fairmont Homes, Garden Spot Village, Homestead Village, Inc., Landis Homes, Luthercare, Masonic Village, Mennonite Home Communities, Moravian Manor, Quarryville Presbyterian Retirement Community, Saint Anne's Home, Tel Hai Retirement Community, United Zion Retirement Community, and Willow Valley Retirement Communities.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record the unanimously agreed upon Concluding Document of the Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom, which occurred in Brussels, Belgium in early August of this year. Over 30 different countries from Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Africa and Latin America sent parliamentarians to participate in the conference to discuss issues of ethnicity, religion and citizenship, responses to anti-Semitism, terrorism and religious freedom, religious registration laws, trafficking in persons, and women's rights. In addition, a number of nongovernmental and religious organizations attended and participated. These kinds of gatherings are vital in building relationships and understanding, and ultimately cooperation and partnership, between peoples of all nations. Concluding Statement of the Second Session of the Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom, August 7, 2004, Brussels, Belgium The Second Session of the Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom encourages the genuine expression of opinions from representatives of the peoples of the world. There is no greater legitimacy than that expressed by peoples in their choice of representatives. The great variety of cultures, the different paths to God, the diverse ethnic backgrounds, and the disparity of historic goals often lead to conflict and bloodshed between peoples, but should instead be sources of inspiration in our quest for valid solutions. Religious freedom is the first human right and should not be confined to the private sphere only. We live in an era characterized by aspirations towards diversity and tolerance but clouded by tragic failures of mutual respect. True religious freedom is more than mere tolerance. It constitutes an embracing of universal human dignity as a consequence of one's religious convictions. Every individual has inherent dignity and worth, and the state is constituted to serve society, not vice versa. The forceful attempts to build homogenous societies in the last century led to horrendous human sufferings, to the carnage of world wars and to genocide. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become the framework for a global compact with great moral authority and the promise of a more just international order. Lifestyles and social structures rooted in different religions should be preserved in order to maintain peace and harmony on all levels, from the local community to the world order. Prejudice and repression based on ethnic, religious and cultural background persist. In some cases these insults to human dignity enjoy the authority of law and the state. Ethnic and religious intolerance are unacceptable and should not be used as a basis for restricting citizenship. A civic covenant and the rule of law constitute the only rational basis for creating a just society. Any cultural and spiritual invocation of undetermined historic or divine authority as justification for hatred and rejection of others directly and actively violates universally proclaimed human rights. The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom solemnly reaffirms the right to freedom of religion and belief for each person, and rejects any attempt to restrict fundamental rights on the basis of religious, ethnic or cultural identity including restrictions or forcing any religious dress. Anti-Semitism is a global concern and never a function of Jewish conduct. Reducing the magnitude of Jewish suffering throughout history to politics alienates and distorts our own humanity. The alarming signs of recurrence of Anti-Semitism, especially in some advanced societies of Western Europe, indicate a deep-rooted prejudice. The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom condemns hatred on the basis of religious, ethnic or cultural identity, including restricting or forcing religious dress. Security has become a global problem. No nation is able to protect its citizens and territorial integrity without international solidarity. The very concept of great power changes its contour in an environment where fringe groups are able to disrupt and damage the very structure of a society. Where freedom of religion and belief is protected by governments and valued by citizens, religion-based terrorism will not take root. It may take advantage of a free society, but sustained support will not emerge. Freedom of religion is an antidote to terrorism--especially religion-based terrorism. It encourages a theological and political awareness of the need to accept pluralism. Discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs or discrediting religious practices are contrary to respect for fundamental human dignity. They destabilize society by creating a climate of tension, intolerance, opposition and suspicion. Respect for freedom of religion and belief is an effective means of promoting national and international security and stability. The gravest danger in the world today comes from fanaticism and extremism that exploits ideals of spiritual and religious movements. Manipulation of religion and spiritual beliefs for violent and terrorist purposes, including murder and destruction of properties, is unacceptable. The global pandemic of HIV/AIDs constitutes a terrible assault on human rights and demands effective action and enforcement of international commitments for education, prevention, care and treatment. Trafficking in persons, in particular women and children, is recognized as a form of enslavement which violates fundamental human rights. Steps need to be taken to ensure that the offense of trafficking in persons is recognized globally as criminal, and to prevent further trafficking in persons. It is imperative to strengthen international institutions and to create new instruments that will address and protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom appreciates the work of the Secretariat and recommends to it that it consult the maximum number of countries in the elaboration of its future programs. The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom encourages parliaments and governments to nurture environments of free expression and respect for human dignity. In this spirit the Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom is grateful to His Majesty King Mohammed VI of Morocco for his generous appreciation of our work: ``It is therefore appropriate that this sort of initiative becomes the foundational undertaking of an international civilization, where complementarity between people is substituted for confrontation and where faith in the paramount necessity of cooperation overcomes the illusion of self-reliance and autarchy.'' The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom accepts the proposal of the delegation of the Kingdom of Morocco to host the Third Session in 2005.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, S. 2634, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, contains some very important language that I would like to point out to my colleagues. The bill requires written, informed parental consent before a child may participate in the programs funded under this bill. The bill provides an exception for this in cases where there is an emergency and the safety of the child or other students is at risk and in cases where parental consent cannot reasonably be obtained. Mr. Speaker, this language is very important. The topic of suicide and death is very sensitive, especially for younger children who are very impressionable. I believe that parents, not schools, should be the first line of defense for educating against and preventing their children from considering suicide. Studies have shown that in some cases, suicide education has actually led to suicides. Parents should have the option of keeping their child out of such classes. In addition, if parents are aware that their child is in such a class or program at school, they will be able to look for any warning signs that their child is considering suicide. The exceptions included in the parental consent requirement are intended to be very narrow--emergency situations and cases where parental consent cannot reasonably be obtained. Emergency situations will be obvious--this would be a situation where a student is threatening his life or the life of someone else. Obviously, in such a case, the counselor or teacher should immediately counsel the student to stop the threatened activity. Some may wonder what is meant by cases where parental consent cannot be ``reasonably'' obtained. This is intended to mean situations where the parent, despite the best efforts of the school or other organization operating a suicide intervention program, cannot personally give consent. One such situation would be where a single parent in the military has gone overseas for duty and the child is temporarily staying with grandparents. But let me be clear--this is not a loophole for those who find obtaining parental consent to be inconvenient or time-consuming. It is for those rare and very limited situations in which a parent simply is not able to provide consent. I would like to thank Chairman Barton for working so diligently on this important language.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, on September 11, 2001, some 3,000 innocent men, women and children were killed in an act of war, including 30 from my home State of Pennsylvania. This weekend we will honor the memory and redevote ourselves to defeating the evil that killed them. We should never forget why they died, for no other reason but that they were Americans, because the agents of evil believe that they can bully us and change our policies by murdering innocent people. And they continue to believe this. We saw it in Russia last week; we saw it in Spain this summer. Madam Speaker, it is our duty to use every element of national power to defeat them and the conditions under which they thrive. Three years after 9/11 we have made progress. I am proud of the way our country has responded. I am proud of our troops. I am proud of our Commander in Chief, who has led us in the war on terror with a steady hand. Most of all, I am proud of the American people, who have joined together to renew our commitment to what makes America great. Let us keep praying that the world will be rid of terrorism.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the programs that teenagers watch on television affect their behavior. Advertisers have known this for years and have cashed in on it. This week, we have a better idea of how television takes hold of our young people. A Rand Corporation study recently found that children who watch a lot of TV with sexual content are twice as likely to be sexually active as those with little exposure to televised sexual behavior. Sexuality is pervasive on television, present in more than two-thirds of all programming from innuendoes to actual depictions. Kids become absorbed with the characters in their favorite shows and begin to model their behavior. They are simply doing what their role models do. Sadly, the study found that doing what their favorite characters do results in regret, and they cited television as a factor in influencing their behavior. In a culture increasingly devoid of positive role models, television is filling the void; and many parents are dropping the ball. Excessive exposure to television hurts our kids. Parents need to turn off the TV before more damage is done to our Nation's kids.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. I thank the chairman for that clarification. The following is a letter from USTR making clear that we do not support Morocco's claim over the Western Sahara and the FTA does not recognize or include the Western Sahara. Executive Office of the President, the United States Trade Representative, Washington, DC, July 20, 2004. Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Pitts: Thank you for your letter of July 19, 2004, concerning our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Morocco and the status of Western Sahara. The Administration's position on Western Sahara is clear: sovereignty of Western Sahara is in dispute, and the United States fully supports the United Nations' effort to resolve this issue. The United States and many other countries do not recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and have consistently urged the parties to work with the United Nations to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. The FTA will cover trade and investment in the territory of Morocco as recognized internationally, and will not include Western Sahara. As our Harmonized Tariff Schedule makes clear, for U.S. Customs purposes, the United States treats imports from Western Sahara and Morocco differently. Nothing in the FTA will require us to change this practice. The Administration will draft the proclamation authorized in the legislation implementing the FTA (H.R. 4842) to provide preferential tariff treatment for goods from the territory of Morocco. Preferential tariff treatment will not be provided to goods from Western Sahara. I hope this letter addresses your question regarding the FTA and the status of Western Sahara. I encourage you to support the FTA. It will create economic opportunities for U.S. manufacturing and service firms, workers, and farmers, and will support economic reforms and foreign investment in Morocco. Thank you again for your letter. Please feel free to contact me should you have further questions. Sincerely, Robert B. Zoellick.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leadership. While trade is a vital component to strengthening with the greater Middle East, promoting the spread of democracy is even more so. The Sahrawi are a peaceful pro-Western, pro-democracy people. They want the international community, including the U.N. Security Council and the United States, to uphold its commitment to a free and transparent referendum for self-determination, and it is unacceptable that Morocco has been allowed to prevent that vote from taking place. During his tenure the former Secretary of State Baker proposed a plan that both parties accepted at first, and the Moroccans accepted the plan, but as soon as the people of Western Sahara accepted they withdrew their support, and I am deeply concerned that the Moroccan government, as patterned, will use this agreement with help from friends in France and others to attempt to increase its exploitation of the resources. I just want to clarify the statement about the people of Western Sahara. Earlier today someone said that the Sahrawis are terrorists. I take exception to this remark, as the people of Western Sahara, and like many others in North Africa and the Middle East, have actually tried to peacefully solve the conflict. The State Department does not consider the people of Western Sahara to be terrorists. It is a misstatement. It is wrong. It is unproductive in our fight against terrorism to suggest that they are, and our own State Department does not believe the people of Western Sahara are terrorists. Secondly, I visited there. I visited the refugee camps. I know the people. They are not terrorists. Members of this House should go to the refugee camps. They should see the terrible malnutrition of the people, the lack of health care, the refugee camps. If they would visit the refugee camps they would know that the information fed to them by supporters is inaccurate. Mr. Chairman, I am voting for the FTA because there is protection for the people and resources of Western Sahara and because I believe the free trade will help the people of Morocco and those of surrounding countries. The following is a series of items that would make clear that this agreement should not be abused by Morocco to profit off of land that it has no legitimate claim to. Western Sahara--Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975 International Court of Justice In its Advisory Opinion which the General Assembly of the United Nations had requested on two questions concerning Western Sahara, the Court, With regard to Question I, ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?'', --decided by 13 votes to 3 to comply with the request for an advisory opinion; --was unanimously of opinion that Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain was not a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius). With regard to Question II, ``What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity?'', the Court --decided by 14 votes to 2 to comply with the request for an advisory opinion; --was of opinion, by 14 votes to 2, that there were legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco of the kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion; --was of opinion, by 15 votes to 1, that there were legal ties between this territory and the Mauritanian entity of the kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion. The penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion was to the effect that: The materials and information presented to the Court show the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They equally show the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory. For these proceedings the Court was composed as follows: President Lachs; Vice-President Ammoun; Judges Forster, Gros, Bengzon, Petren, Onyeama, Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, de Castro, Morozov, Jimenez de Arechaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, Nagendra Singh and Ruda; Judge ad hoc Boni. Judges Gros, Ignacio-Pinto and Nagendra Singh appended declarations to the Advisory Opinion; Vice-President Ammoun and Judges Forster, Petren, Dillard, de Castro and Boni appended separate opinions, and Judge Ruda a dissenting opinion. In these declarations and opinions the judges concerned make clear and explain their positions. Course of the Proceedings (paras. 1-13 of Advisory Opinion) The Court first recalls that the General Assembly of the United Nations decided to submit two questions for the Court's advisory opinion by resolution 3292 (XXIX) adopted on 13 December 1974 and received in the Registry on 21 December. It retraces the subsequent steps in the proceedings, including the transmission of a dossier of documents by the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Statute, Art. 65, para. 2) and the presentation of written statements or letters and/or oral statements by 14 States, including Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Spain and Zaire (Statute, Art. 66). Mauritania and Morocco each asked to be authorized to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the proceedings. By an Order of 22 May 1975 (1.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 6), the Court found that Morocco was entitled under Articles 31 and 68 of the Statute and Article 89 of the Rules of Court to choose a person to sit as judge ad hoc, but that, in the case of Mauritania, the conditions for the application of those Articles had not been satisfied. At the same time the Court stated that those conclusions in no way prejudged its views with regard to the questions referred to it or any other question which might fall to be decided, including those of its competence to give an advisory opinion and the propriety of exercising that competence. Competence of the Court (paras. 14-22 of Advisory Opinion) Under Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of any duly authorized body. The Court notes that the General Assembly of the United Nations is suitably authorized by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter and that the two questions submitted are framed in terms of law and raise problems of international law. They are in principle questions of a legal character, even if they also embody questions of fact, and even if they do not call upon the Court to pronounce on existing rights and obligations. The Court is accordingly competent to entertain the request. Propriety of Giving an Advisory Opinion (paras. 23-74 of Advisory Opinion) Spain put forward objections which in its view would render the giving of an opinion incompatible with the Court's judicial character. It referred in the first place to the fact that it had not given its consent to the Court's adjudicating upon the questions submitted. It maintained (a) that the subject of the questions was substantially identical to that of a dispute concerning Western Sahara which Morocco, in September 1974, had invited it to submit jointly to the Court, a proposal which it had refused: the advisory jurisdiction was therefore being used to circumvent the principle that the Court has no jurisdiction to settle a dispute without the consent of the parties; (b) that the case involved a dispute concerning the attribution of territorial sovereignty over Western Sahara and that the consent of States was always necessary for the adjudication of such disputes; (c) that in the circumstances of the case the Court could not fulfill the requirements of good administration of justice with regard to the determination of the facts. The Court considers (a) that the General Assembly, while noting that a legal controversy over the status of Western Sahara had arisen during its discussions, did not have the object of bringing before the Court a dispute or legal controversy with a view to its subsequent peaceful settlement, but sought an advisory opinion which would be of assistance in the exercise of its functions concerning the decolonization of the territory, hence the legal position of Spain could not be compromised by the Court's answers to the questions submitted; (b) that those questions do not call upon the Court to adjudicate on existing territorial rights; (c) that it has been placed in possession of sufficient information and evidence. Spain suggested in the second place that the questions submitted to the Court were academic and devoid of purpose or practical effect, in that the United Nations had already settled the method to be followed for the decolonization of Western Sahara, namely a consultation of the indigenous population by means of a referendum to be conducted by Spain under United Nations auspices. The Court examines the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the subject, from resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, to resolution 3292 (XXIX) on Western Sahara, embodying the request for advisory opinion. It concludes that the decolonization process envisaged by the General Assembly is one which will respect the right of the population of Western Sahara to determine their future political status by their own freely expressed will. This right to self-determination, which is not affected by the request for advisory opinion and constitutes a basic assumption of the questions put to the Court, leaves the General Assembly a measure of discretion with respect to the forms and procedures by which it is to be realized. The Advisory Opinion will thus furnish the Assembly with elements of a legal character relevant to that further discussion of the problem to which resolution 3292 (XXIX) alludes. Consequently the Court finds no compelling reason for refusing to give a reply to the two questions submitted to it in the request for advisory opinion. Question I: ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the Time of Colonization by Spain a Territory Belonging to No One (terra nullius)?'' (paras. 75-83 of Advisory Opinion) For the purposes of the Advisory Opinion, the ``time of colonization by Spain'' may be considered as the period beginning in 1884, when Spain proclaimed its protectorate over the Rio de Oro. It is therefore by reference to the law in force at that period that the legal concept of terra nullius must be interpreted. In law, ``occupation'' was a means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession; it was a cardinal condition of a valid ``occupation'' that the territory should be terra nullius. According to the State practice of that period, territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terrae nullius: in their case sovereignty was not generally considered as effected through occupation, but through agreements concluded with local rulers. The information furnished to the Court shows (a) that at the time of colonization Western Sahara was inhabited by peoples which, if nomadic, were socially and politically organized in tribes and under chiefs competent to represent them; (b) that Spain did not proceed upon the basis that it was establishing its sovereignty over terrae nullius: thus in his Order of 26 December 1884 the King of Spain proclaimed that he was taking the Rio de Oro under his protection on the basis of agreements entered into with the chiefs of local tribes. The Court therefore gives a negative answer to Question I. In accordance with the terms of the request for advisory opinion, ``if the answer to the first question is in the negative'', the Court is to reply to Question II. Question II: ``What Were the Legal Ties of This Territory with the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian Entity?'' (paras. 84-161 of Advisory Opinion) The meaning of the words ``legal ties'' has to be sought in the object and purpose of resolution 3292 (XXIX) of the United Nations General Assembly. It appears to the Court that they must be understood as referring to such legal ties as may affect the policy to be followed in the decolonization of Western Sahara. The Court cannot accept the view that the ties in question could be limited to ties established directly with the territory and without reference to the people who may be found in it. At the time of its colonization the territory had a sparse population that for the most part consisted of nomadic tribes the members of which traversed the desert on more or less regular routes, sometimes reaching as far as southern Morocco or regions of present-day Mauritania Algeria or other States. These tribes were of the Islamic faith. Morocco (paragraphs 90-129 of the Advisory Opinion) presented its claim to legal ties with Western Sahara as a claim to ties of sovereignty on the ground of an alleged immemorial possession of the territory and an uninterrupted exercise of authority. In the view of the Court, however, what must be of decisive importance in determining its answer to Question II must be evidence directly relating to effective display of authority in Western Sahara at the time of its colonization by Spain and in the period immediately preceding. Morocco requests that the Court should take account of the special structure of the Moroccan State. That State was founded on the common religious bond of Islam and on the allegiance of various tribes to the Sultan, through their caids or sheiks, rather than on the notion of territory. It consisted partly of what was called the Bled Makhzen, areas actually subject to the Sultan, and partly of what was called the Bled Siba, areas in which the tribes were not submissive to him; at the relevant period, the areas immediately to the north of Western Sahara lay within the Bled Siba. As evidence of its display of sovereignty in Western Sahara, Morocco invoked alleged acts of internal display of Moroccan authority, consisting principally of evidence said to show the allegiance of Saharan caids to the Sultan, including dahirs and other documents concerning the appointment of caids, the alleged imposition of Koranic and other taxes, and acts of military resistance to foreign penetration of the territory. Morocco also relied on certain international acts said to constitute recognition by other States of its sovereignty over the whole or part of Western Sahara, including (a) certain treaties concluded with Spain, the United States and Great Britain and Spain between 1767 and 1861, provisions of which dealt inter alia with the safety of persons shipwrecked on the coast of Wad Noun or its vicinity, (b) certain bilateral treaties of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whereby Great Britain, Spain, France and Germany were said to have recognized that Moroccan sovereignty extended as far south as Cape Bojador or the boundary of the Rio de Oro. Having considered this evidence and the observations of the other States which took part in the proceedings, the Court finds that neither the internal nor the international acts relied upon by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant period of either the existence or the international recognition of legal ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Moroccan State. Even taking account of the specific structure of that State, they do not show that Morocco displayed any effective and exclusive State activity in Western Sahara. They do, however, provide indications that a legal tie of allegiance existed at the relevant period between the Sultan and some, but only some, of the nomadic peoples of the territory, through Tekna caids of the Noun region, and they show that the Sultan displayed, and was recognized by other States to possess, some authority or influence with respect to those tribes. The term ``Mauritanian entity'' (paragraphs 139-152 of the Advisory Opinion) was first employed during the session of the General Assembly in 1974 at which resolution 3292 (XXIX), requesting an advisory opinion of the Court, was adopted. It denotes the cultural, geographical and social entity within which the Islamic Republic of Mauritania was to be created. According to Mauritania, that entity, at the relevant period, was the Bilad Shinguitti or Shinguitti country, a distinct human unit, characterized by a common language, way of life, religion and system of laws, featuring two types of political authority: emirates and tribal groups. Expressly recognizing that these emirates and tribes did not constitute a State, Mauritania suggested that the concepts of ``nation'' and of ``people'' would be the most appropriate to explain the position of the Shinguitti people at the time of colonization. At that period, according to Mauritania, the Mauritanian entity extended from the Senegal river to the Wad Sakiet El Hamra. The territory at present under Spanish administration and the present territory of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania thus together constituted indissociable parts of a single entity and had legal ties with one another. The information before the Court discloses that, while there existed among them many ties of a racial, linguistic, religious, cultural and economic nature, the emirates and many of the tribes in the entity were independent in relation to one another; they had no common institutions or organs. The Mauritanian entity therefore did not have the character of a personality or corporate entity distinct from the several emirates or tribes which comprised it. The Court concludes that at the time of colonization by Spain there did not exist between the territory of Western Sahara and the Mauritanian entity any tie of sovereignty, or of allegiance of tribes, or of simple inclusion in the same legal entity. Nevertheless, the General Assembly does not appear to have so framed Question II as to confine the question exclusively to those legal ties which imply territorial sovereignty, which would be to disregard the possible relevance of other legal ties to the decolonization process. The Court considers that, in the relevant period, the nomadic peoples of the Shinguitti country possessed rights, including some rights relating to the lands through which they migrated. These rights constituted legal ties between Western Sahara and the Mauritanian entity. They were ties which knew no frontier between the territories and were vital to the very maintenance of life in the region. Morocco and Mauritania both laid stress on the overlapping character of the respective legal ties which they claimed Western Sahara to have had with them at the time of colonization (paragraphs 153-160 of the Advisory Opinion). Although their views appeared to have evolved considerably in that respect, the two States both stated at the end of the proceedings that there was a north appertaining to Morocco and a south appertaining to Mauritania without any geographical void in between, but with some overlapping as a result of the intersection of nomadic routes. The Court confines itself to noting that this geographical overlapping indicates the difficulty of disentangling the various relationships existing in the Western Sahara region at the time of colonization. For these reasons, the Court (paragraphs 162 and 163 of the Advisory Opinion) gives the replies indicated on pages 1 and 2 above. [From Reuters News Service, Jan. 13, 2004] Sardines and Sovereignty in Western Sahara (By Eileen Byrne) Laayoune, Western Sahara.--On trawlers at the quayside near Laayoune, the main city in Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara, the crew unload sardines in wicker baskets thrown from hand to hand. The traditional baskets are misleading, because the yield of sardines, octopus and squid from the Western Saharan ports of Laayoune, Boujdour and Dakhla has come to represent more than 60 percent of Morocco's total annual fisheries yield of almost one million tons. With sovereignty over the Western Sahara still in dispute, this is a politically significant catch. The uncertainty about the future of this vast, mainly desert territory in the northwest corner of Africa puts a dampener, for now, on investment in tourism for winter sun- seekers, officials in Laayoune admit. But against the backdrop of diplomatic stalemate, as the United Nations strives for a solution to the dispute between Morocco and the Polisario separatist movement, Morocco is keen to show that the regional economy is developing apace. The fishing sector is one area where the authorities can point to significant growth, always under the firm guiding hand of the central government. southern-most subjects Claiming Western Sahara as its historic ``southern provinces,'' Morocco controls most of the territory. The Polisario movement, based across the border in Algeria, sees the future of the area as an independent state, governed by its Saharan Arab inhabitants, known as Sahrawis. Since a 1991 cease-fire, successive U.N. initiatives aimed at ending a dispute which dates from 1975, and asserting the Sahrawis' right to ``self-determination,'' have failed. Advocates of independence for Western Sahara stress the territory's mineral wealth, with the phosphate mine at Boukra near Laayoune, and possible offshore oil reserves. But the Boukra mine is loss-making and subsidized by the Office Cherifien des Phosphates' more important phosphate production near Khouribga, according to officials. It is fishing that generates new jobs and export earnings. Western Sahara fish products now account for up to seven percent of Morocco's total export earnings of 85.6 billion dirhams ($9.80 billion). Morocco declined to renew a fishing accord with the European Union which until the late 1990s had allowed foreign boats into Moroccan waters. It has instead spent heavily since then on port infrastructure in Western Sahara, as though consolidating its hold on the territory. Like all other businesses in Western Sahara, the sardine canning businesses, and plants processing octopus for Japanese dinner tables, pay no taxes except for payroll contributions. They also benefit from the subsidies in the prices of fuel, power and water with which Morocco woos its southern-most subjects, who account for less than two percent of the kingdom's 29.6 million population. Local investors are often Sahrawi notables who see the territory's future with Rabat rather than the Polisario and who play a prominent role in the local economy. A little over a generation ago, the Sahrawis' lifestyle revolved around camel and goat rearing. Fish did not figure at all in the Sahrawi diet and even today few Sahrawis work directly with fish. But among new investors, the favorable conditions for businesses can sometimes encourage over-hasty decisions. octopus for the japanese Lining the walls of the conference room in the Laayoune governor's headquarters, photos showed a visit to Western Sahara by Morocco's King Mohammed. Some 40 men, and one woman wrapped in the colored veil worn in Western Sahara, listened to Morocco's Fisheries Minister Taieb Rhafes. He had flown down from Rabat to explain why he was extending a ban on octopus fishing. With him were representatives of Moroccan banks whose loans to local investors had encouraged a proliferation of octopus- freezing plants around Dakhla, from a handful in 1997 to 90 in 2003. The octopuses have been almost wiped out by over- fishing, the minister explained. It takes only three months to have an octopus-freezing plant up and running, said an official. At Laayoune port, the fishermen are not Sahrawis, but come from Moroccan ports further north--Agadir, Essaouira and Safi. A spontaneous movement of sardines southwards, traced by Morocco's fisheries research institute, the INRH, coincided with the development of infrastructure in the Western Sahara. The fishermen followed the fish southwards, bringing their expertise with them. Moroccan officials have no separate figures for employment among Sahrawis and non-Sahrawis. ``There are no two communities here,'' only Moroccan citizens, Laayoune Governor Mohamed Rharrabi told Reuters. With the sea-faring culture far-removed from the traditional Sahrawi lifestyle, it seems fishing will provide only some of the jobs needed in the Laayoune region, where unemployment at the last census was 40 percent among 20 to 24 year-olds. Denmark Does Not Recognise Moroccan Sovereignty on Western Sahara [From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 22, 2004] COPENHAGEN--Danish Government, does not ``recognise Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara'', declared Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Per Stig Mfller, in response to a question he answered before of his Parliament, according to close sources to the Saharawi representation to Denmark. Answering a question asked by Danish Member of the Parliamentary group Enhedslisten (Union list, in English), Mr. Soern Soendergaard, the Minister for Foreign Affairs asserted that his Government ``does not recognise Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara'', considering Moroccan presence on the territory as illegal and unacceptable. Regarding the peace plan, elaborated by UN Secretary General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker, Mr. Mfller affirmed that this plan remains applicable, recalling that it ``is accepted by Polisario Front and the neighbouring countries and is unanimously adopted by Security Council in its resolution 1495''. Finally, the Head of Danish diplomacy reiterated ``the support of Denmark of the efforts paid by UN's Secretary General and his former Personal Envoy aimed at reaching a just and lasting solution to the conflict'', in Western Sahara conforming to international legality and by implementing UN's resolutions. [From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 24, 2004] German PDC/CSU Calls to Immediate Settlement of Western Sahara Conflict Berlin.--The parliamentary group of German Christian Democrat Party (PDC/CSU) in Bundestag (Parliament), called on Thursday to an immediate settlement of Western Sahara's conflict, exhorting international community to pay more efforts in defending Saharawi people's ``right to self- determination''. In a communique publicised on Thursday, of which SPS received a copy, PDC/CSU parliamentary Group's spokesperson, Dr. Christian Ruck, asserted that ``Western Sahara conflict's settlement tolerates no more delays'', calling international community to pay more efforts in defending Saharawi people's ``right to self-determination''. UN Secretary General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker's resignation ``may push to failure'' the peace plan for self- determination of Saharawi people, though this plan constitutes ``a reasonable compromise to realise peace in this region'', deplored the spokesperson. Thus, the international community is called to ``prove to the people of this region, who is still suffering this old aging conflict, that its right to self-determination remains a priority for the international community'', which should also defend UN's principles and international law, so as to reach a peaceful settlement to this problem, concluded the communique. [From Upstream Online & Hardcopy, July 2, 2004] Svitzer Feels Heat in Western Sahara (By Barry Morgan) Fugro affiliate Svitzer has just completed a marine survey on Kerr-McGee's Boujdour acreage off the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Based in Norfolk in the UK, Svitzer is the latest company to attract brickbats from activists determined to persuade industry players not to sign deals with Morocco, which occupies the territory and claims its resources. Following a one-year extension, KMG's reconnaissance permit will expire on 29 October. However, its tenure is contested by the Sahrawi independence militia, which has long fought for sovereign control, stirring international controversy over the licencing regime imposed by Rabat. Fellow UK consultancy Robertson Research International (RRI) is also poised to complete survey work in Western Sahara, despite question marks over the legitimacy of UK corporate involvement in what the UK government calls a ``non-self governing territory'' where it says sovereignty remains to be determined under UN auspices. For its part, RRI said it is not directly contracted to Rabat. Confirmation of RRI's involvement comes hard on the heels of a campaign launched by Western Sahara support groups across Europe against exploration and production companies doing business at the behest of Rabat. Kerr-McGee, Total and TGS-Nopec were blasted for jumping the gun on a fragile peace process in which the UN has sought diplomatic consensus ahead of a referendum on self- determination for the Sahrawi people. Activists' primary target of late has been UK-registered Wessex Exploration, which was recently invited to Rabat to finalise a preliminary but open-ended deal to analyse onshore data ahead of an exploration push outlined by Moroccan state oil company managing director Amina Benkhadra. Wessex has been warned that ``its reputation would suffer'' if it did not back off or negotiate with the Sahrawi authorities. In the meantime, several UK parliamentarians have moved to seek clarification of the UK government's position on British companies doing business in Western Sahara. Concerned MPs led by the Labour Party's David Drew, want to pin down Whitehall on its attitude. Drew will shortly table a parliamentary question seeking greater clarity. Drew now speaks for the Western Sahara Support Group and two Conservative MPs are expected to join existing members before they resurface as a parliamentary force. The UK Foreign Office insists sovereignty in Western Sahara remains undetermined as long as UN calls to resolve the crisis via the so-called Baker Peace Plan remain unheeded. ``We want to push the UK to promote the Plan so that Morocco withdraws. It should also tell British companies that they should not get involved in Western Sahara at this time while the UN mandate remains unimplemented,'' said Drew. The Foreign Office currently has no problem with companies winning reconnaissance or E&P licences from Rabat, so long as the practical effect complies with constraints laid down by the UN Legal Office on ``disregarding the rights'' of the Sahrawi people. This means Kerr-McGee and Total can use TGS-Nopec and Fugro to shoot seismic as long as rigs are not deployed to confirm or produce oil finds. Meanwhile, the acquisition of strategically important seismic data for Rabat as the licensor remains legal under the ``look but don't touch'' interpretation of both UK and US governments. However, a UK official said that ``we'd have to revisit this opinion if activity got this far. There is no official endorsement''. ``Right now, our view is that UK companies going into Western Sahara are on their own and we cannot link them to the Department of Trade & Industry or offer the support of any other government mechanisms,'' the source added. Two UK-registered companies presently stand on both sides of the fence. Sterling Resources has inherited an exclusive offshore PSC from AIM-listed Fusion Oil & Gas following a recent take-over, while Wessex is under increasing pressure after retaining its exclusive study licence from Rabat. After expending $600 million on peace-keeping efforts, the UN system is tiring of the Western Sahara crisis, with UN Special Envoy James Baker resigning in frustration last month. The UN's new representative, Alvaro de Soto, said this week that he would pursue the same policy as Baker, suggesting no new ideas to break the deadlock were on the table.

Mr. PITTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) as well for his leadership on the U.S.- Morocco Free Trade Agreement. I am a free trader and believe that free trade helps our Nation and the nations of the world. However, I am deeply concerned about the issue of Western Sahara, and I have had concerns that the U.S. needed to make clear that this free trade agreement covers only the internationally- and the U.S.-recognized borders of Morocco and does not include the disputed territory of Western Sahara. It is my understanding that the language in the conference report makes clear that the free trade agreement does not cover resources, goods, services, or any other entity related to trade that originates in Western Sahara. I would ask the gentleman, does the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement cover trade with the disputed territory of Western Sahara?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, there is still a lot to do, but as we speak the Iraqi government is making progress. Iraqi police are rounding up kidnappers. The Kurds have captured 15 foreign militants in Kirkuk, including a key leader and an al-Qaeda affiliate. The number of Arab and other foreign fighters currently detained in Iraq continues to grow. Iraq's border police have apprehended more than 60,000 foreigners in the past 7 months, most of them Iranians trying to enter Iraq illegally, and there are plenty of signs that the residents of Baghdad are finding a sense of normalcy amidst the transition to democracy. Five teams participated in the first Iraqi baseball tournament, including two female teams. Nightlife is returning to the banks of the Tigris River, and residents have started frequenting summer cafes. In Mosul the military is working with Iraqis to dig wells, renew archeological digs, build a laboratory and repair a hospital elevator. The Iraqi people are making progress despite the ongoing efforts of terrorists to drag them back to the dark ages of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing The Controlled Substances Export Reform Act, legislation to create and maintain U.S. jobs by reforming our Nation's outdated pharmaceutical export control laws. Current law allows U.S. companies to export most controlled substances only to the immediate country where the products will be consumed. Shipment to central sites for further distribution across national boundaries is prohibited. Mr. Speaker, foreign competitors labor under no such restrictions and can readily move approved medical products between international drug control treaty countries without limit or restriction. The exclusive prohibitions imposed by U.S. law on American manufacturers place them at significant disadvantage in international markets, creating powerful incentives for domestic companies to move production overseas, damaging local economies and costing U.S. jobs. The legislation I have introduced today, along with a bipartisan group of my colleagues, authorizes the Attorney General to permit carefully regulated pharmaceutical exports to our international drug convention partner countries. The bill retains full Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) authority over all shipments of controlled substances and establishes strict procedures to ensure these products are used solely for legitimate medical purposes. While the DEA's authority over exports is undiminished, by creating new parity for U.S. companies with their international competitors, the legislation encourages domestic production and job growth. The Controlled Substances Export Reform Act supports American jobs and protects U.S. interests. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our national security is of paramount importance, President Clinton laughed when asked what he thought about his former National Security Adviser stealing and losing highly classified national terrorism documents. But this is no trifling matter. The documents were codeword secret, the most highly guarded secrets we have. One or more copies of a memo, an analysis of the Clinton administration's antiterror efforts around the millennium, are still missing. In the highest levels of the Clinton administration, terrorism may have been a laughing matter. We know now it is not. This is a serious breach of security. This is the guy who served as a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign and wants a top spot in the Kerry administration. We should question Senator Kerry's judgment for placing him in a key position in his campaign. Fox News reported that he hid the documents in his socks ``inadvertently.'' Whether or not that is true, this whole thing stinks.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the Medicare bill is the market-based provisions contained in the discount drug card program. These cards provide immediate help to seniors who need prescription drugs. By bringing transparency and accountability to Medicare, the cards will help 7.3 million people with Medicare save between $1.4 billion and $1.8 billion altogether in discounts on their prescription. An additional feature is the $600 credit that helps low-income cardholders buy medicine. Individuals who make less than $12,569 per year and couples who make less than $16,862 are eligible for the credit. That means the first $600 in drug costs incurred by the recipients will be covered by the Federal credits. More than 83,000 Pennsylvania low-income seniors will benefit from the plan. There are some 40-plus cards available. Seniors can call 1- 800-MEDICARE to figure out which card is best for them.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, over a century ago, on a hot summer day, an event occurred of national significance that by some eyewitness accounts, altered history, as we know it today. This act of war produced an obligation on the part of the Federal Government that to this day remains unpaid and largely forgotten. The event I am referring to is known as the ``Burning of the Columbia Wrightsville Bridge.'' Occurring on June 28, 1863, just 72 hours before the Battle of Gettysburg, this catastrophic event did not just destroy an ordinary bridge--it destroyed an extraordinary bridge. Completed in 1834 at a cost of $128,726.50, it was the longest covered wooden bridge in the world, 40 feet wide with 27 piers, it spanned 5,620 feet across the Susquehanna River. Ironically, this event and its impact on the region have lived in the shadow of the Battle of Gettysburg. Historians may debate whether or not this event had any impact on the Battle of Gettysburg. There is however, no denying the significant impact it had on preserving the loss of personal property throughout the region as evidenced by the following statement made by Colonel Jacob G. Frick, the man who gave the order to destroy the bridge. ``The object to be kept in view, and which was paramount, was the prevention of the enemy from capturing the bridge, and thus frustrate them in their evident purpose to cross the Susquehanna at that point, get in the rear of Harrisburg, and between that place and Philadelphia destroy railroads and ravage the rich counties of Dauphin and Lancaster.'' In order to fully understand the importance of this bridge and the town of Columbia, one must first examine conditions as they were in 1863 not as they may be today. First, how many of you are aware that the first place to be considered as the nation's capital was Columbia, Pennsylvania? It was an important travel artery for westward expansion, at times Conestoga Wagons would have to wait several days for their turn to cross the bridge. Railroads including the Philadelphia and Columbia, the Pennsylvania, and the Reading and Columbia all converged along the banks of the Susquehanna at Columbia. These trains would either cross over the bridge to connect with the Susquehanna & Baltimore Railroad or transfer their cargo to packet boats that then traveled Westward via the Union Canal through the interior of Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh or where pulled by mules across the river via a towpath constructed on the side of the bridge to the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal that connected Columbia with the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. Columbia being at the epicenter of this vital transportation network made it a logical destination for industries consisting of iron furnaces, rolling mills, saw mills, flour mills, and railroad machine shops that were supplying goods to a growing nation. Columbia's strategic position would have made it a fine prize indeed for any invading Southern army bent on disrupting vital communications and supply lines in the North. Colonel Frick made this statement in a letter from 1892: ``I was fully impressed with the belief at the time that this bridge was General Lee's objective point, and that it was to become the highway of the Confederate army to reach the centers which enabled the Northern army to maintain its position in the field by cutting off the supplies by capturing the eastern ports and plant the seat of war in Pennsylvania instead of Virginia.'' In a letter received by Colonel Frick from Major Granville O. Haller, dated Seattle, April 28, 1892, says that he and Col. Thomas M. Anderson, commanding Fourteenth United States Infantry, had been discussing the burning of the bridge, Colonel Anderson wrote to Major Haller March 30, 1892, as follows: All theories apart, I should say that it would have been better to have burned twenty bridges than to have taken any chances. If the burning of the bridge stopped Gordon, it was as important as a battle. On the 10th of April Major Haller sent a letter that was submitted to Colonel Frick in February 1892 from General John B. Gordon, admitting to Colonel Frick that without question his order to destroy the bridge stopped him and his troops from crossing, to Colonel Anderson. Colonel Anderson accepted it as conclusive evidence of Lee's intention, and thus confirmed in his opinion as to the importance of burning the bridge. Who other than God of battles would know until the afternoon of July 3, whether Meade or Lee would be victor? If Meade, then the enemy would be driven from our border. If Lee then the seat of war would have located itself between the Susquehanna and the Delaware and the Hudson. The Columbia Bridge would have become the Confederate highway to Lancaster, Philadelphia, and New York. In their onward march an army of veterans would have met with no fortified towns or cities; a practically unarmed and undisciplined militia, and a panic-stricken community in its front and a broken army sullenly following far in its rear; who can tell what awful results would have been had Lee been victorious at Gettysburg, yet who knew that he would not be until July 3, 1863? Now for some particulars on the chain of events that led up to the burning and what transpired after that event. On June 10, 1863 the Department of the Susquehanna was created under the control of General Coach to protect the area. Notices were put out for volunteers to serve. By June 24, 1863 it became apparent to General Coach a unit of approximately 2,500 veteran soldiers continued Eastbound to gain control of a bridge across the Susquehanna River between the towns of Columbia and Wrightsville. On June 24, 1863, General Couch under special order #14, ordered Colonel Frick to proceed to Columbia and take charge of all bridges and fords on the line of the Susquehanna River in Lancaster County, and will make such dispositions as will effectively secure these crossings. Colonel Frick: ``My duty in the premises was plain. Gen. Couch plainly indicated my duty in his orders, wherein he said: `` When you find it necessary to withdraw your command from Wrightsville leave a proper number on the other side to destroy the bridge; keep it open as long as possible with prudence and exercise your own discretion in doing so.'' It must be remembered as we look at this dramatic and critical event in retrospect, that as a result of this most necessary and important cutting of the available crossing of the river at the time of the invasion, a private corporation suffered a loss of property of the first magnitude. So evident was the effect of its destruction in the public mind, that we find the following statement in the Lancaster Examiner and Herald of July 8, 1863, but ten days following the event: The burning of the bridge which spanned the Susquehanna River at Columbia, has given rise to a rumor that its loss would have the effect of impairing the credit of the Columbia Bank. This now seems will not be the case, as the structure was destroyed by order of the military authorities, thus making the Government responsible for all loss. The following note from the Cashier of the Columbia Bank fully explains the circumstances. June 29, 1863. Dear Sir, The bridge at this place, owned by the Columbia Bank, was burned by the United States Military authorities to prevent the Rebels from crossing the Susquehanna River.--Signed Samuel Schock, Cashier. It was not until 1868 that construction of a new bridge was started. Today the only remnants of this piece of history are the stone piers still standing in the River and the story of the bridge and its destruction being told by Michael and Nora Stark, owners of the little known, but highly significant First National Bank Museum. If it were not for this museum, this important piece of American history would certainly be lost forever.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we have made great progress in the war on terror. Three years ago, in Afghanistan, al Qaeda was training and sending out thousands of terrorists. Pakistan had a significant al Qaeda presence. Saudi Arabia was a major area of support for al Qaeda. In Iraq, a sworn enemy of America was in power. Nuclear weapons technology was being sold to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Libya. For years, terrorists attacked the U.S. with relative impunity. Three years later, because of the leadership of George Bush, in Afghanistan the terror camps are closed, Osama bin Laden is hiding in caves. Pakistani forces are rounding up terrorists on their border. Saudi Arabia is working closely with the U.S. to root out al Qaeda. In Iraq, our coalition removed a declared enemy of the United States. And we have ended one of the most dangerous sources of nuclear proliferation. Today, because America has acted and we have led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment. I am concerned about the use of U.S. funds in Colombia. In particular, I am deeply concerned about four public statements by the President of Colombia in which he accused domestic and international human rights organizations of supporting armed groups and of being allied with terrorists. These statements are not only unhelpful but are also deeply disturbing. Human rights organizations are working to assist with humanitarian aid and building civil society in local communities in Colombia that have been torn apart by the terrible violence. The President's verbal assaults on human rights organizations do absolutely nothing to help the Colombian people or to help bring an end to the violence--instead his comments may cause a reverse in a recent trend of a decrease in politically motivated violence. Despite the fact that the above violence has decreased, there are some areas of Colombia in which local communities continue to be victims of terrible violence and suffering. For example, security in the special security areas, such as Arauca, has deteriorated under the current President. According to Evangelical and Catholic church leaders, there have been dozens of cases in which pastors, priests, and lay leaders have been targeted by armed actors of the left and the right for refusing to take up arms. According to these reports, 37 Protestant pastors were killed in the first 6 weeks of 2003 and four Catholic clerics were assassinated in 2003. Most of these cases were in the State of Arauca. The numbers of politically motivated murders have not changed for the better--in 2003, over 3,000 civilians were killed for political motives and at least 600 ``disappeared.'' Around 2,200 people were kidnapped, more than half by armed opposition groups and army-backed paramilitaries. Armed opposition groups such as the FARC and ELN were responsible for repeated and serious breaches of international humanitarian law, including hostage taking and the abduction and massacres. They carried out attacks using disproportionate and indiscriminate weapons that resulted in the death of numerous civilians. The government and security forces increased their attempts to undermine the legitimacy of human rights defenders, peace activists and trade unionists. This coincided with paramilitary threats and attacks against human rights organizations. The attacks on these groups made it nearly impossible for many to continue documenting and reporting on human rights abuses by all armed actors--if the human rights organizations cannot do their work, the violations are largely under- reported. Despite the declared cease-fire, paramilitaries were still responsible for massacres, targeted killings, ``disappearances'' torture, kidnappings and threats. They were allegedly responsible for the killing or ``disappearance'' of at least 1,300 people in 2003, over 70 of all attributable, non-combat, politically related killings and ``disappearances.'' Even the United Nations has noted an increase in complaints of serious human rights violations which directly involve the security forces themselves. I would urge President Uribe to cease his senseless attacks on human rights organizations that simply hurt those who are helping the people of Colombia--instead he should vigorously pursue those who commit horrifying atrocities and terrorize communities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today the Senate will vote on an issue of critical national importance: marriage. The issue is whether we will stand idly by as a few unelected judges redefine the family for us or if we will take a stand and say ``enough is enough.'' The best home for kids is when their biological parents, mom and dad, live at home, are married, and are engaged in the lives of their children. Unfortunately, many claim this is an issue for the States. Indeed, it is, if that is what were happening, but it is not. Courts are circumventing the States in order to make this happen so that we will never debate it, so that States will never debate it, and the American people will never debate it. That is just how activists want it. There is no way around it. We need to amend the Constitution. The Federal marriage amendment is supported by a very diverse coalition. Voting on it is hardly politics as usual. It is the least we can do to protect the stability of our communities and the best future for our children. The United States Congress should vote for the marriage protection amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, UPN is making a new reality TV show about the Amish. The very act of making this show violates a fundamental Amish religious tenet, and paying a few Amish teams to participate requires them to break it. See, the Amish believe that television or photographs themselves violate the Ten Commandments' ban on graven images. If one is selling a show based on its participants' religious identity, should they not at least respect the religious tenets of those participants and their families? One affiliate in Pennsylvania, UPNTV15 in Harrisburg, has decided not to air the program until it previews its content. UPN15 has taken a principled and courageous stand. Its request to prescreen the show will help them ensure that the show's content does not offend its viewers. Other affiliates should follow suit, and advertisers should think twice before attaching their names to a show that potentially degrades a minority religious community. This series would be offensive, exploitative, and inaccurately portray a minority group. It should be cancelled.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the King of Morocco is in Washington to tout the newly signed U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. I am a free trader, but I have serious reservations about this plan. Morocco today illegally occupies a country in West Africa known as Western Sahara. The King's government has promised people of Western Sahara, the Sahrawi, a vote to determine their own future. It has not happened, and it keeps delaying. A decade after that promise, powerful friends help the Moroccan Government postpone this vote and consolidate control over the occupied territory. The Sahrawis are a peaceful, pro-Western and prodemocracy people. Despite living under an illegitimate colonial power, they have established a deep-rooted culture of democracy capable of supporting a viable state. They elect their own leaders, many of them women, provide education and equal rights to all of their citizens, men and women. The only stability a sovereign democratic Western Sahara disrupts is a status quo defined by tyranny. We should keep that in mind when we vote on the trade agreement on the House floor.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Payne and I welcome King Mohammed VI of Morocco to the United States and wish him well during his visit. We strongly urge His Majesty to uphold and implement his nation's agreements regarding the conflict over the Western Sahara. In addition, we urge His Majesty to uphold UN Security Council Resolution 1541 as a tribute to former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who promoted international legality and justice while responding to the true long- term interests of both parties concerned in this conflict. His Majesty's support for the former U.N. Special Envoy Baker's Peace Plan would be the best contribution to peace and stability in the region. In addition, upholding the Peace Plan would demonstrate the effectiveness of the pursuit of national aspirations through non-violence in the greater Middle East, a region that has been the target of much violence. Mr. Speaker, last week, a number of Members sent a letter to President Bush requesting that during his meeting with the King, he strongly encourage His Majesty to implement the United Nations Settlement Plan in order to achieve a just, peaceful, and lasting resolution to the conflict over Western Sahara. The letter welcomed United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1541 adopted April 29, 2004, which reaffirmed support for the Peace Plan for Self- Determination of the People of Western Sahara devised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's Special Envoy, James Baker, and shared deep regret over the departure of Mr. Baker and the circumstances that led to his resignation. In addition, the letter welcomed the confidence-building measures taken by the Polisario Front which released a further 643 Moroccan POWs since July 2003; the number of POWs the Polisario has liberated since 1991 now totals 1,760. However, the Members of Congress expressed their regret that the Government of King Mohammed VI has not reciprocated in a commensurate way. The fact that the Sahrawis have opted for non- violence in the affirmation of their identity and have respected the terms of the cease-fire signed in 1991 between their representative and Morocco, is telling in terms of who is committed to settlement of the conflict. Further, the letter expressed great concern that if the conflict between these two parties is left unresolved, it has the potential to disrupt peace and stability in the Maghreb region, thus threatening the interests of the United States. The Members expressed that the United States should use its unique influence in that region to press the Moroccan Government and the Polisario Front to agree to the Peace Plan and to implement it under the supervision of the United Nations. Although U.S. attention is primarily focused, as it should be, on Iraq and on the war against terrorism, the letter underscores the concern of the Members that the Western Sahara conflict needs to be addressed urgently and fairly to the benefit of the peoples of the region and in the interest of the United States. A peaceful, successful resolution of the conflict over Western Sahara will provide a signal to the Broader Middle East and North African region that in the 21st century there are successful alternatives to violence in the pursuit of national aspirations. Mr. Speaker, we again extend our welcome to His Majesty and strongly urge him not to stand in the way of progress towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict over Western Sahara.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Pennsylvania State University is among the most recognizable institutions of our state. The school is home to one of the country's most storied and successful college football programs. Today, we celebrate its 150th anniversary, not for its football program, but for its service to our state and its world class academic traditions. For even the football program, led ably by Joe Paterno, sets the academic standard for programs across the nation. It is part of an athletic department defined by excellence on and off the field. Penn State graduated 80 percent of student-athletes from the entering class of 1996- 97 within 6 years, compared to a national average of 62 percent for student-athletes at all Division I NCAA institutions. The football team produced an especially noteworthy academic performance, with 86 percent of the freshmen entering in 1996-97 earning their degrees--significantly above the national rate of 54 percent. Since 1854, when the school was founded as Farmers' High School, Penn State has revolutionized the way our state approaches farming and continues to be among the world's leaders in agricultural research and innovation. Over the years, Penn State has expanded its offerings to include every serious academic discipline. U.S. News & World Report's ``America's Best Graduate Schools 2004'' places a number of Penn State programs among the nation's top ten, including supply chain/logistics, industrial/manufacturing engineering, materials engineering, nuclear engineering, agricultural engineering, higher education administration, administration/supervision, vocational/technical education, counseling services, ceramics, and rehabilitation counseling. Penn State's Smeal College of Business has been ranked among the nation's top ``Best Undergraduate Business Programs'' at public universities. The honors extend to undergraduate disciplines across the academic spectrum. In 2003, 15 Penn State faculty or staff members received regular grants to lecture or conduct research abroad as Fulbright Scholars, more outgoing Fulbright grants than any other institution in the United States. But the measure of a university extends beyond commencement day and even beyond the classroom or research lab. A university's reputation in businesses and communities across the nation is carried and enhanced by that university's alumni. Penn State has 466,000 living alumni worldwide, 240,000 of them in Pennsylvania. The Penn State Alumni Association, formed in 1870, has more than 146,000 members, making it the largest dues-paying alumni association in the nation. These men and women carry the standard for their alma mater and are proof of the world-class education Penn State students receive during the time on campus. I am honored to join my colleagues in both House and Senate from the Keystone State in honoring Penn State and thanking its administrators, professors, students, and support personnel for offering a terrific education at a reasonable price to so many for so long. It is an honor well-deserved.