Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, ``Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.'' Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, ``Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.'' These will ask Him, ``When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?'' And Jesus will answer them, ``Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!'' As we have gathered here to pray together, I think it will be beautiful if we begin with a prayer that expresses very well what Jesus wants us to do for the least. St. Francis of Assisi understood very well these words of Jesus and His life is very well expressed by a prayer. And this prayer, which we say every day after Holy Communion, always surprises me very much, because it is very fitting for each one of us. And I always wonder whether 800 years ago when St. Francis lived, they had the same difficulties that we have today. I think that some of you already have this prayer of peace--so we will pray it together. Let us thank God for the opportunity He has given us today to have come here to pray together. We have come here especially to pray for peace, joy and love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had told us what is that good news when He said: ``My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you.'' He came not to give the peace of the world which is only that we don't bother each other. He came to give the peace of heart which comes from loving--from doing good to others. And God loved the world so much that He gave His son--it was a giving. God gave His son to the Virgin Mary, and what did she do with Him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary's life, immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as she came into the house of her cousin, Elizabeth, Scripture tells us that the unborn child--the child in the womb of Elizabeth--leapt with joy. While still in the womb of Mary-- Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist who leapt for joy in the womb of Elizabeth. And as if that were not enough, as if it were not enough that God the Son should become one of us and bring peace and joy while still in the womb of Mary, Jesus also died on the Cross to show that greater love. He died for you and for me, and for the leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person lying in the street, not only of Calcutta, but of Africa, and everywhere. Our Sisters serve these poor people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted that we love one another as He loves each one of us. Jesus gave His life to love us and He tells us that we also have to give whatever it takes to do good to one another. And in the Gospel Jesus says very clearly: ``Love as I have loved you.'' Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for Him to do good to us--to save us from our selfishness in sin. He gave up everything to do the Father's will--to show us that we too must be willing to give up everything to do God's will--to love one another as He loves each of us. If we are not willing to give whatever it takes to do good to one another, sin is still in us. That is why we too must give to each other until it hurts. It is not enough for us to say: ``I love God,'' but I also have to love my neighbor. St. John says that you are a liar if you say you love God and you don't love your neighbor. How can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live? And so it is very important for us to realize that love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is not true love in me and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me. It hurt Jesus to love us. We have been created in His image for greater things, to love and to be loved. We must ``put on Christ'' as Scripture tells us. And so, we have been created to love as He loves us. Jesus makes Himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and He says, ``You did it to Me.'' On the last day He will say to those on His right, ``whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me, and He will also say to those on His left, whatever you neglected to do for the least of these, you neglected to do it for Me.'' When He was dying on the Cross, Jesus said, ``I thirst.'' Jesus is thirsting for our love, and this is the thirst of everyone, poor and rich alike. We all thirst for the love of others, that they go out of their way to avoid harming us and to do good to us. This is the meaning of true love, to give until it hurts. I can never forget the experience I had in visiting a home where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters who had just put them into an institution and forgotten them--maybe. I saw that in that home these old people had everything--good food, comfortable place, television, everything, but everyone was looking toward the door. And I did not see a single one with a smile on the face. I turned to Sister and I asked: ``Why do these people who have every comfort here, why are they all looking toward the door? Why are they not smiling?'' I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people, even the dying ones smile. And Sister said: ``This is the way it is nearly everyday. They are expecting, they are hoping that a son or daughter will come to visit them. They are hurt because they are forgotten.'' And see, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our own family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we there? Are we willing to give until it hurts in order to be with our families, or do we put our own interests first? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, especially as we begin this year of the family. We must remember that love begins at home and we must also remember that ``the future of humanity passes through the family.'' I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it like that, when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East? And the answer was: ``Because there is no one in the family to receive them.'' Our children depend on us for everything--their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married or have given up on their marriage. So their children go to the streets and get involved in drugs or other things. We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin. These are the things that break peace. But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today--abortion which brings people to such blindness. And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere-- ``Let us bring the child back.'' The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things--to love and to be loved. In this year of the family we must bring the child back to the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that our world can survive because our children are the only hope for the future. As older people are called to God, only their children can take their places. But what does God say to us? He says: ``Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand.'' We are carved in the palm of His hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us. I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption--by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: ``Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child.'' So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: ``Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child.'' And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child--but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said, ``Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me.'' By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus. Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy. I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gifts of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily. I also know that there are great problems in the world-- that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion. The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: ``You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.'' And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich. When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread. But a person who is shut out, who feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person who has been thrown out of society--that spiritual poverty is much harder to overcome. And abortion, which often follows from contraception, brings a people to be spiritually poor, and that is the worst poverty and the most difficult to overcome. Those who are materially poor can be very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: ``You take care of the other three; I will take care of the one who looks worse.'' So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, as she said one word only: ``thank you''--and she died. I could not help but examine my conscience before her. And I asked: ``What would I say if I were in her place?'' And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said: ``I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain,'' or something. But she gave me much more--she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face. Then there was the man we picked up from the drain, half eaten by worms and, after we had brought him to the home, he only said, ``I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die as an angel, loved and cared for.'' Then, after we had removed all the worms from his body, all he said, with a big smile, was: ``Sister, I am going home to God''--and he died. It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel-- this is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich even when they are materially poor. We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together. There is so much hatred, so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice, are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put into what we do. If we are contemplatives in the heart of the world with all its problems, these problems can never discourage us. We must always remember what God tells us in Scripture: ``Even if a mother could forget the child in her womb''--something impossible, but even if she could forget--``I will never forget you.'' And so here I am talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. Be that good news to your own people first. And find out about your next-door neighbors. Do you know who they are? I had the most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said: ``Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something.'' So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children--their eyes shining with hunger. I don't know if you have ever seen hunger. But I have seen it very often. And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked her: ``Where did you go? What did you do?'' And she gave me a very simple answer: ``They are hungry also.'' What struck me was that she knew--and who are they? A Muslim family--and she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening because I wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing. But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the joy and peace with their mother because she had the love to give until it hurts. And you see this is where love begins-- at home in the family. So, as the example of this family shows, God will never forget us and there is something you and I can always do. We can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our hearts, and share that joy with all we come in contact with. Let us make that one point--that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared for, or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts with a smile. Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a professor from the United States asked me: ``Are you married?'' And I said: ``Yes, and I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse, Jesus, because He can be very demanding--sometimes.'' This is really something true. And this is where love comes in when it is demanding, and yet we can give it with joy. One of the most demanding things for me is travelling everywhere--and with publicity. I have said to Jesus that if I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to heaven for all the travelling with all the publicity, because it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready to go to heaven. If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak--the unborn child--must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of concern over the continued imprisonment and disappearance of Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of the National League of Democracy in Burma. The cruel SPDC military dictatorship ruling Burma today imprisoned her in May of this year after their own government thugs attacked her and her supporters. Ms. Suu Kyi is now on a hunger strike in protest. Mr. Speaker, no country should be defending this savage dictatorship that has no qualms about engaging in slave labor, systematic rape, destruction of villages and the murder of many innocent civilians. What more will it take to get the international community to take deliberative, decisive action? Secretary General Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security Council should immediately act to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, help alleviate the suffering of the people and address the terrible state of affairs in Burma.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week would have been Mother Teresa's 93rd birthday. She was an amazing woman who served those no one else cared about, the poorest of the poor. On February 5, 1994, she spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast. I had the privilege of hearing her address. And in her speech she challenged people there to love others as God has loved us. And in front of that audience of 3,000-plus people, this little amazing woman said that the West had lost its credibility in the effort to promote peace around the world, and she could have pointed to a number of things to prove her point, but incredibly here is what she cited: she cited abortion as the reason. Rather than ruin her message with words of my own, I would like to submit her speech for the Record and just read one sentence. She said: ``I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?'' Maybe she had some insight the rest of us do not. Read her remarks and judge for yourself.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, our State Department should urge, as all of us should, the U.N. Security Council to immediately address the ongoing conflict in Burma. Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi remains disappeared, and the military junta will not disclose her whereabouts. The so-called Burmese State Peace and Development Council, the SPDC, which is their name for the military junta, uses slave labor, child soldiers, and mass rape campaigns against the people, the exact opposite of bringing peace and development to Burma. Yet the SPDC is now lobbying surrounding governments to gain support for its rule. The Prime Minister of Thailand has created a road map for peace in Burma, but the plan leaves the brutal dictatorship in power. What will it take for the international community to act? How many political prisoners must be tortured and ethnic villagers brutally raped and then murdered? How long must somebody be held incommunicado before strong, decisive action against the SPDC is taken? Mr. Speaker, the international community must act now to help the people of Burma.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on June 4 we passed a ban on the terrible procedure called partial-birth abortion. Now, 48 days later, we have not even gone to conference to work out the differences with the other body. Why? Despite the fact that the bill passed with bipartisan support of the majority of this Nation's elected leaders, the bill remains stalled. A couple of members in the other body are using an unusual delay tactic to prevent them from going to conference. Filibustering judicial nominees is one thing, but blocking a bill that both Chambers have already passed overwhelmingly is just wrong. Their tactics threaten how Congress works and how our democracy functions. Even worse, every day this bill sits in no-man's land, more babies can be partially delivered and then killed. We need to get the bill to conference, to the President to honor the commitment of both Chambers of Congress to the American people to end this terrible practice for good.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, the actions of China and the UNHCR, in response to the North Korean refugee crisis, are reprehensible. China has deliberately failed to uphold the obligations under international law and the conventions that they have signed and has prohibited the UNHCR from carrying out its accepted mandates to assist refugees. The Chinese government has prevented North Korean refugees from their right to apply for asylum. Any North Koreans who have tried to do this have disappeared, and the UNHCR has failed in its mandate to invoke binding arbitration against countries that prohibit it from carrying out its mandate. Chinese officials fear a refugee flood, but refugees do not flee their country simply to find refugee assistance, they flee because of wide-spread starvation, human rights violations and other terrible atrocities and sufferings. Madam Speaker, the U.N. should condemn China as well as the UNHCR for their failure to uphold their obligations; and Kim Jong Il should step down from power; and the North Korean government should stop their brutal policies against the North Korean people.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of Iraqi citizens who have volunteered to rebuild their country, to establish democracy and the rule of law, to turn on the power and water, set up schools and courthouses, build roads and homes. As the cohorts of Saddam Hussein attack our troops, they are killing Iraqis as well. This confirms that Saddam Hussein is not just an enemy of the coalition troops; he is an enemy of freedom and prosperity, an enemy of peace and democracy, an enemy of all who seek to bring these back to Iraq. So I join many who come to this floor lamenting the loss of American life in Iraq, and I join them in their desire for our troops to be home soon; but we need to also remember that Saddam Hussein's rage does not end with the American soldier. He is perfectly willing to kill Iraqis to keep his nation from moving forward. We are grateful for the efforts of peace-loving Iraqis in helping to rebuild their nation and establish democracy.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The Chinese government has a policy of killing unborn children it deems a waste of valuable space in one of the world's largest countries. And the UNFPA's response to this policy? Turn a blind eye to the practice of forcing women to kill their unborn children. In fact, it has gone so far as to praise China's population control tactics. Until that changes, UNFPA should not get a dime of the U.S. taxpayers' money. Last year the State Department said that the UNFPA, and I quote, ``is helping improve the administration of local family planning offices that are effectively coercing women to have abortions.'' Witnesses have testified in the Committee on International Relations that the UNFPA shares office space in one Chinese county with the Chinese Office of Family Planning. That is the very same agency carrying out these coercive practices. And after these revelations, did the UNFPA change its ways? No. Instead, it claimed ignorance. As we debate this bill, let us face the truth. UNFPA actively and passively supports the policy of forcing women to kill their unborn children based on the debatable claims that it controls population growth. Is that really what we want to support or encourage? I do not think so. If we truly care about human rights, we should support programs that work, programs that uphold the dignity of human life, not programs that allow a repressive communist government to enforce a systematic effort of abuse, repression, and forced abortion. Some in this body are more committed to using taxpayer money to force Chinese women to have abortions because they have chosen to have children. They are so deeply committed to forcing these women to have abortions that they have already prevented us from sending more than $60 million to people in need. Make no mistake about it, UNFPA is in bed with Beijing on forced abortions, and if we fund UNFPA, Beijing gets stronger. If we fund UNFPA, we only encourage the regime's strategy of exterminating the babies they do not want; and we should not do that.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes 360 and 361, I was inadvertently detained. May the record reflect that on rollcall vote No. 360, I would have voted ``yea,'' in support of the rule for the consideration of H.R. 1950. And, on rollcall vote No. 361, on passage of H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, I would have voted ``yea,'' as I am an original cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 and urge all my colleagues to support this bill. The military regime is guilty of ethnic cleansing, systematic rape, forced porterage, destruction of homes, villages and food sources, the use of human land mine sweepers, and the detention of over 1200 political prisoners. Two excellent reports describe the horrifying systematic campaign of rape against the Shan, Karenni, Karen, Mon, Tavoyan and other ethnic groups. In the study License to Rape, investigators found that in ``25 percent of the incidents documented, the girls or women were killed following the rape, by being shot, suffocated, beaten, stabbed or burned to death.'' In the study, No Safe Place: Burma's Army and the Rape of Ethnic Women, there is clear documentation of the military raping women fleeing the fighting, raping those incarcerated in military camps, raping those forced into labor for military, and raping women out foraging for food. In one case, a young women heard her sister's cries `` `they are raping me'--but could do nothing to stop it. A day after she was taken, the soldiers brought her body back for the family to bury. Her wounds indicated clearly that she had been raped, perhaps to death, Despite the fact that the soldiers continued to return to their village after the murder,'' the young women and her family were too afraid to complain. The suffering of the people of Burma has gone on too long. Sadley, the international community has shown little willingness to vigorously address the issues facing the people of Burma, but H.R. 2330 is an important step to directly impact the situation in the country. I urge the dictatorship release Aung San Suu Kyi from detention. I also urge the dictatorship of Burma to immediately engage in a tri- partite dialogue with the National League for Democracy and the ethnic minorities. Only when the rights of the NLD and the ethnic minorities are recognized and protected will there be peace in Burma. Mr. Speaker, a regime that engaged in this horrifying campaign of systematic rape to decimate the ethnic minorities, in addition to all the other human right violations it commits, must be stopped. I urge my colleagues to support the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, recently scientists in a lab in Chicago took a female human embryo and injected into it cells from a male human embryo, creating what they called a mixed-sex embryo. In the name of progress, some scientists are pushing the limits of medical ethics with their experimentation and toying with human life, and this is what happened in Chicago last week. But the fact that it happened opens the door to even further laboratory experiments in manufacturing human life. The effect of unethical research is that it turns human life into a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder or to the most advanced laboratory. The more scientists do this type of experimentation, the more likely we will face a situation described in science fiction books where humans are mass produced in laboratories. We should not go down that road. What can Congress do about it? We can start by sending the President a cloning ban to sign into law. The other thing we can do is to fund good ethical research.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, recently I heard an amazing story. For 22 years, Jawad Amer Sayed was a dead man. Instead of fleeing into exile as a member of the Iraqi opposition group, he decided to stay; and for 22 years, he hid inside a false wall he built between two rooms in his home. On April 10, the day after Saddam Hussein fell from power, Sayed emerged from his hideaway, to the amazement of relatives and friends. Only his mother, younger brother and two sisters knew what had happened to him. Everyone else thought he was dead. Saddam Hussein murdered millions. Not only did he kill those opposed to him; he tortured them and their families, and his brutality forced millions into exile from fear. Sayed's story is a testament to that fear. Rather than torture and death, Sayed chose solitary confinement. There are millions of Iraqis like Sayed who have come out of hiding into the light of day. Now they can talk about freedom. Now they can protest. Now they can worship freely. Now they can express opinions about their government, and now they can choose something other than death or confinement. They can choose liberty.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago, a North Korean ship, the Pong Su, was captured while trying to transfer $80 million worth of heroin to a fishing boat off the coast of Australia. This incident confirms that the rogue regime of Kim Jong Il is selling drugs to tighten his grip on power and prolong his reign of terror. The evidence tying this evil regime to the drug trade is overwhelming. One of the 26 people aboard the Pong Su was a member of the North Korean ruling party who served as a senior envoy in Pyongyang's embassy in Beijing. At a recent hearing in the Senate, a former high-ranking North Korean official testified that Kim Jong Il has personally designated land in North Korea for the growth of opium. And U.S. State Department officials have concluded that the illegal drug program is sanctioned by the North Korean Government, who is using it to fund its weapons programs. This incident is a reminder that North Korea will stop at nothing to expand its nuclear arsenal.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, should the United States allow its military and political leaders like General Tommy Franks, Colin Powell and Vice President Cheney to be tried for war crimes in Belgium? Some bureaucrats in Belgium would like to think so. Trying to be a player on the world stage, it adopted a universal jurisdiction law supposedly giving Belgian courts jurisdiction over war crimes committed anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld did the right thing by saying we would not spend taxpayer money to support the new NATO headquarters in a country that could prosecute our soldiers and leaders. Maybe it is time that we even think of moving the NATO headquarters to a more friendly country. Belgium should not turn its legal system into a platform for divisive politicized lawsuits against her own NATO allies. No civilian or military leader could go to Brussels without fear of harassment from Belgium's courts enforcing spurious charges against them. The bureaucrats in Brussels and around the world who think they can wield unlimited global judicial power without being elected by anyone should be stopped.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H. Res. 264 expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake in Algeria on May 21, 2003. Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, can wreak havoc in a community or nation. At times like these, it is vital to come to the support and aid of our friends. I am pleased that our nation has assisted the Algerians in the emergency phase of their response to the earthquake and I encourage our government to support the Algerians as they seek to rebuild their homes and communities. Algeria is an important partner and friend of the United States in many respects, not the least of which is in the war against terror--the Algerians have experienced the horrors of terrorism in their own land for many years. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in the past week, in scenes reminiscent of Eastern Europe in the last days of the Soviet domination, students in Tehran took to the streets in protest against Iran's brutal, repressive government. They were a vivid reminder that a lot of Iranians want more freedom in how they live their lives. But it was not just students demonstrating. On Sunday, several hundred intellectuals, including several clerics, issued a statement supporting the right of Iranians to criticize the government. These patriots do not want to be told what to think, what to wear, what to read, what to watch, how to behave; and they are frustrated at the slow pace of change. The demonstrations are evidence enough that freedom-loving people in Iran are growing in numbers and boldness. Instead of complaining about what we have not found in the Middle East countries, let us appreciate what we have found, people longing for the same freedoms that we enjoy.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, it is important that in determining the EAS eligibility for a small airport the Secretary define a consistent standard for identifying the commonly used route. It is my hope that the Secretary would use the most reliable mapping capability to determine this route, such as the Rand McNally mapping system. Further, to ensure that small airports receive a fair shake in the EAS eligibility process, my amendment requires that the Secretary consult with the Governor of the State or the Governor's designee. In appointing a designee if the Governor so chooses, the Governor should consider designating a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to submit a plan for the most commonly used route. An MPO knows the routes that people take from one point to another in a particular region. My amendment was drafted to ensure that, while the Secretary of Transportation has discretion, the local community should not be shut out of the process.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to America's fathers. Mr. Speaker, we often hear negative comments about fathers and fatherhood. We hear a lot about ``deadbeat dads'' and absent fathers. It's easy to forget that there are millions of American fathers who love their wives and their children. They get up every morning and go to work to support their families. They go to baseball games and ballet performances and school plays. They help their kids with their homework, chaperone proms and mow the lawn. They treat their wives with respect and model healthy relationships. They make sacrifices and invest in the next generation. Current research shows that these daily acts of responsibility and faithfulness have a major impact on child well-being. We also know that marriage is the foundation of responsible fatherhood, and that fathers who are married to the mothers of their children are more likely to be involved in their children's lives. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative: The best predictor of father presence is marital status. Compared to children born within marriage, children born to cohabiting parents are three times as likely to experience father absence, and children born to unmarried, non-cohabiting parents are four times as likely to live in a father-absent home. In a longitudinal study of 2,500 children of divorce, twenty years after the divorce less than one-third of boys and one-quarter of girls reported having close relationships with their fathers. In contrast, seventy percent of youths from the comparison group of intact families reported feeling close to their fathers. But, we don't need statistics to tell us that committed, involved father's are essential to the preservation of the family. Yesterday, thousands of families in my district celebrated Father's Day. Amid all the distractions of our society, many stopped, for just a minute, to honor ``Dad.'' It seems that politics and social change and the faddish nature of our culture have not been able to erase the enduring value of fatherhood and the imprint that father's have in my district and across this great nation.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that the negotiations over the Western Sahara for the past decade have all been for nothing. Former Moroccan Minister of Interior Driss Basri recently said, ``The Houston agreement did not come as a way to find a solution to the issue of Sahara. It came as a starting point of an American plan . . . and it will preserve the American interests,'' and as U.N. diplomat Marrack Goulding wrote, ``for enhanced autonomy for Western Sahara within the kingdom of Morocco.'' I find it deplorable and offensive that various officials of Morocco, the U.N., and the U.S. engaged in what amounted to a farce. They spent over $530 million and negotiated an agreement to hold a referendum for the people of Western Sahara without ever intending to hold that referendum. Mr. Speaker, this is not a game. The people of Western Sahara agreed to a ceasefire on the basis that all parties would uphold the negotiated agreement of a free, fair, and transparent referendum for self-determination. The people of Western Sahara have no desire to suffer under the colonial rule of the kingdom of Morocco; and so the United States, the U.N., and Morocco should stop the game-playing and implement the referendum.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member and the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee for their support; and I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the essential air service program is important for many small airports throughout the country. It helps smaller communities to connect with larger cities and their airports and facilitates travel, tourism, and economic development. To be eligible to receive such assistance, the community where the airport is located must be greater than 70 miles from the nearest large or medium-hub airport according to the most commonly used highway route. However, the Department of Transportation does not always use a consistent standard in determining the most commonly used highway route, nor do they actually determine the most commonly used route. Sometimes they have use the most direct route, even if it means taking back roads. In my congressional district, this has led to the Lancaster Airport to lose its eligibility for the EAS program. The Department, using the most direct route, determined Lancaster Airport to be 68.5 miles from the Philadelphia International Airport. However, the route they chose would take the average driver more than 3 to 4 hours to drive. It winds along the old Lincoln Highway through dozens of small towns. In fact, anybody from my district knows that this is probably the worst way to get to Philadelphia. The most commonly used highway route, the one that locals know as the fastest, uses the Pennsylvania Turnpike or other highways; and this route may be 12 miles longer, but you can get to Philadelphia in half the time. Because the Department is using the wrong route, Lancaster Airport's only commercial air carrier ceased operations at the airport on March 23 of this year. The air carrier maintained that current market condition, fewer passengers and high costs made it impossible to continue without investment from the EAS program. This issue affects other small airports throughout the country and could affect more if this issue is not addressed. My amendment addresses this problem by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to define a consistent standard for determining the most commonly used route. It also requires the Secretary to consult with the Governor of the State in which the airport in question is located or the Governor's designee as to the most commonly used highway route between that airport and the nearest large or medium-hub airport. Essentially, my amendment seeks to inject predictability and common sense into the process for determining EAS eligibility. It is narrowly tailored to improve the EAS eligibility process without impeding on the Secretary's authority to determine eligibility. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).