Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last month a dozen of my colleagues and I sent a letter to a Supreme Court Justice. In the letter we questioned her ties to the NOW Legal Defense Fund. She speaks regularly to the group. There is a lecture series named after her, and she has served on its board in the past; but she continues to hear cases argued before her in which the NOW Legal Defense Fund, which is now called Legal Momentum, files briefs. In January, she gave opening remarks for the fourth installment of her lecture series. Two weeks earlier, she took the legal defense's side in a medical screening case. Federal law requires recusal when a judge's outside legal activities, ``cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before them.'' This Justice has official ties to a group that participates in cases before the Court. That sounds like reasonable doubt to me. But this Justice has yet to respond to an official inquiry from Members of a co-equal branch of government. Professional courtesy warrants at least an acknowledgement that she received the letter, but not even that. Justice Ginsburg should acknowledge our concerns and recuse herself from cases involving any group with which she has official ties.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat candidate for President has promised to create 10 million jobs if elected, but a recent economic analysis of his plan by the Heritage Foundation says he is wrong and showed four negative effects of his scheme. First, employment growth slows under his plan with 225,000 fewer jobs created per year under his policy, in contrast to the fact that in the first quarter of this year, 513,000 new jobs have been created. Secondly, GDP growth slows for the next decade, underperforming by $20 billion in just the first 5 years. Third, after-tax income shrinks. And this makes sense. Taxes go up, take-home pay goes down. And under the Democrat plan, take-home pay plummets $240 billion below current projections. And, lastly, savings plummet. The personal savings rate would average 17 percent less during just the first year of his administration. Each of these items would reverse trends started by President Bush's economic recovery program, a plan that is working. In the end his tax-and-spend, rob-the-rich-to-pay-the-government economic scheme will do more harm than good.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in the fall of the year 2000, a Predator drone captured Osama bin Laden on tape. At that time, the Predator could not be armed. But the tape is revealing. It was relayed in real time to CIA headquarters, and the CIA was watching bin Laden as he moved, when he moved. The tape proves that the Clinton administration had bin Laden in its sights, as it did several times during its 8 years in office, but did nothing. A former CIA station chief in Afghanistan said that the Clinton White House issued an ultimatum to the CIA, ``Capture bin Laden, don't kill him.'' They wanted to arrest bin Laden and send him to court. Unfortunately, since then we have learned that you cannot fight terrorism by filing legal papers. We cannot hesitate to act in defense of our national interests, even if that means acting alone or acting preemptively. We cannot wait for appropriate international committees to give us permission. Our national security is far too important to be left to the whims of world opinion, and it is far too important to wait for legal papers to be filed.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from Alaska for his assistance over the past several years regarding an issue that is negatively impacting two transit systems in my congressional district: Red Rose Transit in Lancaster and BARTA, Berks Area Reading Transit Authority. They join over 50 other transit agencies across the country facing the same problem. And I have a list of these systems that I will submit for the Record. As the chairman knows, under current law transit systems that serve communities in urbanized areas exceeding 200,000 in population according to the most recent census lose their local flexibility in the use of section 5307 Federal transit funds. The chairman has been very helpful in protecting these systems from losing their flexibility over the past couple of years to provide a bridge to the reauthorization of the transportation spending that we are considering today. While I appreciate the language that is currently in the bill extending the flexibility protection through fiscal year 2005, it does not go far enough to mitigate the financial crisis facing small transit systems in the fastest growing communities throughout the country. Instead of encouraging the growth of transits in these emerging communities, current law penalizes them. Red Rose Transit and BARTA stand to lose access of upwards of $1 million in Federal transit funds. They are being treated more like transit systems in big cities than the more suburban and rural communities that they actually serve. Mr. Chairman, we need a long-term or permanent solution to this problem. The current language in this bill does not go far enough. It is not a matter that these systems need more time to get their books in order; it is that they cannot financially make ends meet under current law. They are already looking beyond 2005 to see what routes to cut, which workers to lay off, and which buses to park in the garage because they cannot afford to run them. Passengers will lose their transportation to their jobs, the elderly will lose their transportation to the doctor, and low-income families will lose their ride to the grocery store. I close by asking that, as you go to conference on this transportation bill, you keep in mind the difficult future these transit systems face and that you would work with us to find a solution that would help these transit systems sustain their operations and meet the growing needs of their communities.

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has a terrible track record on appeasing dictators. The growing scandal surrounding the Iraqi Oil for Food program is a good example. While the Iraqi people suffered from shortages of food and medicines, Saddam Hussein looted billions of dollars in U.N. aid to fund his military and buy friends around the world. Manufacturers and trade brokers in Europe, Russia, China, and the Arab world benefited from billions Saddam Hussein funneled to them, all courtesy of the U.N. Oil for Food program. Those who profited from Saddam's generosity have become propaganda mouthpieces for his corrupt regime. As Saddam's friends criticized how sanctions made the Iraqi people suffer, they pocketed billions of aid intended for the people they claimed to care about. No wonder they were against liberating the Iraqi people. They were profiting off of their suffering. These coconspirators with Saddam Hussein should be exposed. Their selfishness and deceit have cost Iraqi lives.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I want to know which Richard Clarke we are supposed to believe. On his watch for 8 years our country suffered four terrorist attacks: in 1993 the New York World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers in 1996, in 1998 two African U.S. embassies, and in 2000 they attacked the USS Cole. Then in 2001, the 9/11 attacks occurred. The Clinton administration did nothing. It merely attacked some empty tents and a Sudan aspirin factory with a few cruise missiles. Richard Clarke himself admitted to PBS in 2002 that they should have taken out terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 90s; but, according to him, there were ``other considerations'' that prevented this action. Now Clarke attacks the Bush administration. Now he is suggesting that going into Iraq has diverted us from the more important goal of defeating al Qaeda, that we cannot do both. He is wrong. When we were attacked on 9/11, President Bush did not waste any time. He used the full power of our Nation to take out the Taliban and hunt down terrorists. Clarke even praised the President for his leadership. Richard Clarke is guilty of the worst kind of spin, changing his story to avoid blame and make a profit on his new book.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in the year 2001, 2002, and 2003, we gave the American people tax breaks. How much more would American families pay without this tax relief? If none of this tax relief had become law, in 2004, 111 million Americans would be paying an average of $1,586 more in taxes; 81 million women would be paying an average of $1,878 more in taxes; 49 million married couples would pay, on average, $2,602 more in taxes. Mr. Speaker, 43 million families with children would be paying an average of $2,000 more in taxes; 11 million single women with children would be paying an average of $921 more in taxes; 14 million elderly individuals would be paying an average of $1,883 more in taxes; 25 million small businesses would be paying an average of $3,000 more in taxes; and nearly 5 million individuals and families who currently have no income tax liability would become subject to the income tax. The numbers speak for themselves.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether children should be allowed to say the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, the 9th Circuit ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The question raised was whether the Pledge forces an establishment of religion on the American people. Ninety percent of the American public answers this question ``no.'' Yet it never ceases to amaze me that the radical activist minority in this country can use the courts and the first amendment on the one hand to permit targeting of children with pornography; and on the other hand they manipulate it to ban any reference to faith, God, or religion in public life. There is no way around it. That is an extremist agenda contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and it is contrary to the will of the people. The fact that this case even made it so far in the courts is a travesty. Our Founders believed, as the American people do, that there is an acceptable beneficial role for public faith and private convictions in the public life of this country. Those who say otherwise are mistaken.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, recently, a Democrat candidate for President was asked about his vote against the $87 billion that went to support our troops in Iraq and to build schools and hospitals for the Iraqi people. He said this: ``I voted for it before I voted against it.'' This rhetoric is so typical of many who want to have it both ways. They vote to give President Bush the authority to send American troops into Iraq, to oust one of the most brutal dictators in history and a supporter of terrorism around the world; but now they say we never should have gone to Iraq, that it was unjustified that the President acted unilaterally. The fact is, on October 10, 2002, a bipartisan majority in this body voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. And then, in October of last year, we voted to supply our troops on the front lines. Unfortunately, many of the same people who voted to send our men and women off to war then voted against them when the time came to give them the resources they needed to do their job and get home safe. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a year ago our troops went into Iraq, removed Saddam Hussein from power, and the world is a safer place with him gone. Hussein was a homicidal tyrant who disregarded international law, basic human rights, and invaded his neighbors at will. He supported Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers. He used chemical weapons of mass destruction against Iran and his own people. He killed thousands and thousands. Hussein reigned over the people of Iraq in terror and he terrorized the region. Human rights organizations report that women told them that rape was routinely used by Iraqi officials as a means of torture and intimidation. Electric shock, pulling out fingernails, dripping acid on victims' skin, gouging out eyes, were torture methods used by Saddam's regime. Iraq has come a long way since then. And if we stay the course, we can build a future for Iraq free of this kind of terror and deal a deathblow to the terrorists who rely on murder and coercion and death to advance the terrible agenda by building a free democratic Iraq.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, what happened in Spain last week was a tragedy of the highest proportion. Our deepest condolences go out to the families who lost loved ones in that devastating attack. And we continue to stand with Spain in finding those responsible for this heinous attack. But I am troubled by the results of the weekend's election. The results of the election were influenced not by debate and campaigns but by bombs and terror. The message is that terrorists can control elections and policy with fear. Until now, Spain's leadership has understood that a peaceful, democratic Iraq would be a deathblow to terrorists around the world. Success in Iraq is success in the war on terror. The American people understand that as well. That is why they boycotted countries that sided with Saddam Hussein. I hope that Americans will not start dumping Spanish wine or changing travel plans or boycotting Spanish goods in protest, but if Spain withdraws its troops from Iraq, the message will be, terrorism works. Fear and intimidation is the native language of terrorists. They only understand strength. Anything less does not pacify them. It only encourages them.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we act on broadcast indecency. First I want to commend and thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his steadfast leadership on this issue. He has been one of the primary reasons for its success. This is not a new issue. Parents have been pleading with us to take action on this issue for years. Unfortunately, it took the use of the four letter word on network TV and Janet Jackson's indecent exposure at the Super Bowl and Howard Stern's foul and racist language to push us into action. I, for one, am tired of parents telling me how they need to cover their children's eyes and ears often too late because of the unacceptable language that has infiltrated television and radio. For too long, we have told the entertainment industry that the Federal Government is unwilling to hold them accountable for their actions. Today we are saying enough is enough. H.R. 3717 sends a clear signal to the entertainment industry, we are no longer going to stand idly by and force our parents to put up with this filth. H.R. 3717 is a good bill. Serious fines ensure that the FCC has the freedom to truly hit these huge companies where it hurts. And one of the most important provisions in the bill was added by my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the three-strikes-and-you- are-out provision. It allows broadcast licensees up to two broadcast indecency violations. On the third, proceedings for license revocation will begin. And this provision will make it clear that Congress is not going to put up with multiple violators. Mr. Chairman, families are sick and tired of worrying about what their children may see or hear every time they turn on television. They are frustrated that the media and industry has seemingly been able to broadcast any type of behavior or speech they feel will bring in advertising dollars. Meanwhile, they feel that the Federal Government has sided with the media elites and turned a blind eye to the concerns of ordinary mom and dads. To American parents, Congress has finally heard you. We will no longer stand idly by on this topic. As one of our Members said, if the entertainment industry cannot police themselves, we will do it for them. So I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the leadership of the committee for moving this important bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Federal transportation law currently penalizes communities like Redding and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in my district or like South Bend, Indiana; Lubbock, Texas; Shreveport, Louisiana; Wichita, Kansas; Jackson, Mississippi; Fort Collins, Colorado; communities like them all over the country. When these communities reach 200,000 people, transit systems in these areas are required to spend Federal money like the big-city transit system. They lose their flexibility. What they need is a small system with unique needs. They are lumped in with the New Yorks and the Philadelphias. But areas like Lancaster and Redding are nothing like Philadelphia. As a result, people in these areas and dozens of others lose out, and that is why I introduced a bill to prevent the Federal Government from penalizing these thriving communities, the Transit Flexibility Protection Act. This bill does not authorize new money. It merely protects small transit systems and their ability to use Federal funds wisely. If we are going to invest in public transit, we should at least do it in a way that truly promotes it in communities like these.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of human rights, today there are between 200- and 300,000 North Korean refugees in China. Half are women, and while the men can find jobs as cheap laborers, most of the women are sold into forced labor or the sex trade. Despite promises, China so far has refused to grant the North Koreans official refugee status, claiming it would invite a flood of new refugees. That is a faulty argument, and China did not make it when Vietnamese refugees sought refuge in their borders. Refugee protection does not cause refugee crises. Horrifying human rights abuses, mass starvation, prison camps, brutal torture, forced abortion, and a ruler who believes that he is God causes refugee crises. It is time for China and the UNHCR to live up to their obligations, and it is time for Kim Jong Il to stop brutalizing his people and to step aside.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, families are tired of having to cover their children's eyes and ears every time they turn on the television. Many parents' standards of common decency are repeatedly offended and their parenting is undermined by the onslaught of indecent material on television and radio. Frankly they have been outraged recently by the examples of filth permitted on the airwaves by the FCC. Just as the majority leader said yesterday, if the industry cannot police itself, Congress must step in. The FCC has been entrusted with enforcing our Federal decency laws and should be expected to do so. There are plenty of laws on the books regarding this matter and the FCC just needs to enforce them. Today the Committee on Energy and Commerce will mark up a bill which allows the FCC to enforce tougher penalties on broadcasters for violations of the law. The privilege of conducting business over the airwaves should always be conditional on their willingness to adhere to standards of common decency. Broadcast airwaves belong to the American people, not to the networks. It is time for Congress to defend and protect America's parents and children and pass a tough bill to ensure decency on the airwaves.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, an economist once said that it is easy to spend money that you do not earn or for which you do not have to take responsibility. That seems to sum up the way we operate around here lately. Last week, my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), took a step to change that. After looking at requests, asking for as high as 30 percent increases from legislative agencies, requested from his subcommittee, he canceled hearings on their requests until they came to their senses. While the other agencies were facing cutbacks, the legislative branch thought it was Christmas morning. If we are serious about being fiscally responsible, we need to start right here in this branch of government. If we cannot keep ourselves in check, how do we expect other agencies to do so? Fiscal responsibility should start right here. Either we have the courage to cut back or freeze here, or we will not have the courage to cut back or freeze at all. While we all have a long way to go, the gentleman from Georgia's actions are a step in the right direction. We need to stop robbing from our children to pay for our addiction in spending.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Americans pay a lot for health care, and there are a lot of reasons for the high costs. One of them is excessive awards in medical malpractice cases. In Pennsylvania alone there are $1.2 billion in payouts for medical malpractice cases a year. That is $1,000 for every man, woman and child in our Commonwealth. People who are mistreated by medical professionals should receive the money they need to compensate for their injuries, but in my State, 40 percent of these awards go to trial attorneys. The result is out-of- control insurance premiums on doctors and higher costs for consumers. A recent survey this year said that 70 percent of Pennsylvania's doctors have considered closing their practice because of the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Many have left, and many of the new doctors are going elsewhere. Of those that purchase coverage, the costs are going up exponentially every year, as much as 50 percent a year. The same survey reported that frivolous lawsuits are preventing them from getting specialized care for their patients. This is a big problem, and one that Congress should address. The House has acted with common-sense reform. Now the other body should get past political games and pass reform of the medical liability lawsuit system in this country. Our doctors need it. More importantly, the American people need it. We need to pass lawsuit abuse reform.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this body will vote on Laci and Conner's Law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill would make it a Federal crime to kill or harm an unborn child in the act of a Federal crime against a pregnant woman. Opponents of this bill claim that this is about abortion. They are wrong. This bill actually protects the expecting mother. The bill identifies 68 existing Federal laws dealing with acts of violence and expands them to include harm to an unborn child. In upholding Minnesota's unborn victims law, the Minnesota Supreme Court said, ``The possibility that a female homicide victim may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude.'' Over half the States have unborn victims protection laws on the books. Many have been upheld by State courts. None have affected access to abortion. Let us put politics aside and pass this bill. We need to protect victims of violent crime and their unborn children, and the bill does that. It offers a defense for those who cannot defend themselves. It makes criminals think twice before attacking a pregnant woman.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the economic numbers we are seeing right now do not lie. Our economy is growing and jobs are being created, but to stay on that track, we need to keep our economy growing. Growth encourages business expansion and entrepreneurship, both of which lead to new jobs, and tax relief encourages growth. That is what we have seen this year. When small businesses and working families keep more of their own money, they spend it far better than we do here in Washington. But many, even many here in this Chamber today, do not believe that. So we will hear lots of talk about repealing tax cuts and spending more. But, Mr. Speaker, that is the wrong way to go. Raising taxes will hurt this economy. Lower tax rates on American families will unleash the full potential of this economy. We need to let American workers keep the reward for their hard work. We need to act this year to make the tax relief permanent. This will encourage long-term growth and allow families and small business owners to plan with confidence for the future.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to offer this statement of recognition for Glenn Robinson, the men's basketball head coach for Franklin and Marshall College. Coach Robinson is a hometown hero for us here in Lancaster. He has passed Illinois Wesleyan's coaching legend, Dennie Bridges, to become the all-time winningest coach in NCAA Division III men's basketball with 667 wins. Coaching more than 900 games for the Diplomats, Coach Robinson has compiled a historic record. He has won more games than any other college basketball coach in Pennsylvania. Historically, he is one of only 41 coaches in collegiate basketball history to have won 600 games. Among the top thirty coaches on all levels of the NCAA, Coach Robinson holds the tenth best winning percentage of all time. That puts him in the elite company of coaching legends like John Wooden, Jerry Tarkanian, Dean Smith, Don Meyer, Jim Boeheim, Lute Olson, Phog Allen, and Mike Krzyzewski. Robinson, who will be inducted into the West Chester Hall of Fame on February 13, has guided the Diplomats to the Division III Final Four four times (1979, 1991, 1996 and 2000) and was named the Basketball Times Division III ``Coach of the Year'' in 1991. He has earned conference and National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) regional ``Coach of the Year'' honors 11 times. But Coach Robinson isn't just about winning basketball games. He produces young men who are winners in life as well. You can't talk about records and winning percentage without mentioning the players who have made it possible. Part of his success has been the players with whom he has worked. Players like Will Lasky (1991 honorable mention, 1992 first team), Don Marsh (1977 & 1979 second team), Jeremiah Henry (1996 first team), Phil Hoeker (1989 honorable mention), Dave Janetta (1994 honorable mention, 1995 third team, 1995 second team), Dennis Westley (1981 second team) and Alex Kraft (2000 first team, 2001 honorable mention) all earned All-America honors under Robinson. Unlike most Division I schools, which measure graduation rate based on the percentage of 4-year players who get a degree, Coach Robinson has a different standard. During his tenure, all but one player to earn a varsity letter in basketball has earned a degree, a statistic which few, if any, other college in the Nation can boast. Coach Robinson grew up in Yeadon, Pennsylvania, just outside of Philadelphia and played high school basketball at nearby Aldan Lansdowne High before continuing his studies at West Chester University. At West Chester, he played collegiate baseball and basketball for the Division II Rams before graduating in 1967, earning a masters degree a year later. Robinson joined the F&M basketball coaching staff in 1968 under Hall of Fame coach and athletic trainer Chuck Taylor. In 1971, he took over the Diplomats' when Taylor resigned to focus on his athletic training responsibilities. His first win came on December 7, 1971 in Mayser Gymnasium, as Franklin & Marshall men's basketball team, then sporting an 0-2 record downed Western Maryland College 80-51. Robinson went on to lead the 1971-72 Diplomats to a 7-14 record with wins over Western Maryland, Eastern, Penn State-Harrisburg, Haverford, Juniata, Messiah and a season concluding 68-51 victory over Drexel University. In 1973 the team improved to 11-13 as Coach Robinson put the pieces in place to build a successful program. In 1974, Robinson and the Diplomats snapped their 10-year span of losing records, with 13-11 season record, the team's most wins for a Franklin and Marshall men's basketball team since its 13-6 showing in 1959. In 1976, Coach Robinson set the school win record with a 17-8 record, erasing the 16 win seasons of Woody Sponaugle in 1952, J. Shober Barr in 1941 and Robinson's own mark from the 1975 season. In 1977, he broke his own record with 22 wins. And he did it again in 1979 with 27, 1991 with 28 and 1996 with 29. His career win total accounts for an astonishing 60 percent of the total collegiate wins in Franklin & Marshall men's basketball history (1,115) since the inception of the sport in 1899-1900 under H.S. Wingert. Coach Robinson is a pillar in our community and has built a program known for the success of its teams on the court and its players off of it. I commend Coach Robinson for reaching this historic milestone. He has earned it. He deserves every accolade and award he receives.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Woolsey amendment. It declares war between the government and faith-based organizations. It cuts services for people in need. It eliminates the role of faith-based organizations in our government's efforts to help. By denying the rights of religious organizations to hire according to their principles, this amendment would deny resources to people who know what they are doing. Many faith-based organizations have proven track records of meeting the long-term needs of people who need it. Many government programs do not. Government may provide food and shelter for a night, but it cannot offer hope and courage many times to build a new life. Faith-based organizations can. There is no need to supplant them or undermine them with another government program. They are great sources of hope and encouragement for those at their wit's end. In 2002, the Access Agency received $60,000 in CSBG funding. A quick visit to their Web site reveals that the Access Agency has a set of core values and principles, including that they ``recognize the dignity and value of every human being'' and ``believe every human being has the fundamental right to a job, food, clothing, shelter and health care.'' I doubt anyone would argue that because the Access Agency received Federal funds, they should have to hire someone who does not believe that employment, for example, is a fundamental right. They are not forced by Congress to hire people who oppose their beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act allows these organizations to hire people who support their mission. This means that a faith-based charity, working to meet the needs of people seeking help, can hire employees who support their religious convictions above those who do not. Why, then, do some call it discriminatory when a Christian or Muslim charity wants to consider the beliefs of potential employees before hiring them to run a federally funded faith-based program? Such practices have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. There is a double standard here. Planned Parenthood receives at least $240 million in Federal tax funds. At least in 2002 they did. Obviously they take belief in abortion into consideration before hiring their employees. They are not forced by Congress to hire pro-life Catholics, for instance. Why, then, do some call it discriminatory when a Christian or Muslim charity wants to consider potential employees' beliefs before hiring them to run a Federally funded faith-based program? The Federally funded faith-based programs under the CSBG program must include participants of all faiths if they choose to participate. The issue at hand is not in regard to who is treated or helped with Federal funds, but merely if groups doing the helping or treating may consider in hiring decisions the faith of an employee who would work in their faith-based programs. Religious freedom in hiring is consistent with constitutional assurances of civil rights, as the Supreme Court has unanimously decided in upholding these protections. It is the critics of the exemption who are trying to undo 35 years of civil rights guarantees by attacking the independence of churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious organizations of every kind. There is no more vital protection for organizations with a religiously rooted approach to social assistance than the freedom to hire according to their convictions. The leadership and staff of an organization determine its destiny. They alone will carry out its mission, uphold its priorities, embody its deepest values. If the first amendment guarantee of religious liberty does not protect the employment decision of faith-based organizations, their right to free association, it then will become a meaningless abstraction. This amendment proposes to tell faith-based groups that they have to hire individuals who disagree with their core principles. If it passes, we might as well revisit the Civil Rights Act itself, since we would be rewriting it today. Faith-based providers cannot be expected to sustain their religious missions without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith. The success of any organization is having everyone on board with its essential principles and vision. The Civil Rights Act secures that right, the Supreme Court protected it, and we should follow suit. By protecting the nature of faith-based organizations in the CSBG, H.R. 3030 encourages providers, who otherwise may not have participated in the CSBG, to do so. This will increase the option afforded to people in need, and it will help more people. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the President signed the omnibus bill into law. H.R. 1943, the Amish Labor bill, a bill I have pushed since I came to this body, was part of that package. The bill keeps in place common sense safety rules, but allows Amish teenagers to learn a trade after they complete their formal schooling, which is equivalent to the eighth grade, in an apprenticeship program. This is the way they learn to make a living. After years of trying to win this protection for the Amish community to preserve their way of life, we have finally done it. The President's signature on this bill is a victory for the Amish, for religious liberty, and for diversity in America. Centuries ago, these people came to America to escape persecution, to worship and live freely, and their life and customs have remained mostly intact since they arrived. They do not ask for Social Security or unemployment or anything from the government; they just want to be left alone to raise their children and make a living. Over the years we have stood up for groups like the Amish when the law has threatened their well-being and survival. I applaud the Senate for approving the bill, I thank the President for signing it into law, and I thank all of my colleagues who helped us get this into law.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, budget projections can be wrong. They often are. But I am also particularly concerned about the CBO report that forecast a several-trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years. That is the highest level as a percentage of GDP since World War II. To be clear, this deficit is driven by spending. We did what we had to do to protect our homeland and give our troops the support they need in the war on terror. But we also spent a lot more in other nondefense areas; and when we add increased government spending to an economic slowdown and the 9-11 attacks, we get deficits. There is no way around it. Fortunately, the tax relief passed by this Congress and signed by the President has stimulated our economy. Now we have to turn our attention to getting government spending under control. We need to tighten our belts a little around here and do the right thing. We should freeze spending and balance the budget as early as we can. We need to get to work to cut the deficit, cut spending, and balance the budget.