Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the cosponsor of this amendment, to close.

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

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Essential Air Service Eligibility Fairness Act of 2003, a bill to provide much needed financial relief to the Lancaster Airport and other airports throughout the United States that are adversely impacted by the existing law. Under current law, if an airport is located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, the airport is ineligible to receive a subsidy from the Essential Air Service Program. However, current law allows the Department of Transportation to determine whether or not a given airport meets the criteria for receiving the EAS subsidy. State and local officials are better able to determine the most commonly traveled routes in their communities. In my own Congressional District, the Lancaster Airport has been affected by this debate. On March 21, 2003, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Department of Transportation's decision to deny Lancaster Airport an EAS subsidy because Lancaster Airport was deemed to be located within 70 highway miles of Philadelphia Airport. The Lancaster Airport and my constituents were dismayed at this decision. The route that the Department of Transportation used is not the most commonly used highway route and would take over three hours to drive. The most commonly traveled route is located 80 highway miles from Philadelphia Airport, but takes only one and a half hours to drive. I am introducing this legislation today, to empower a Governor or a local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to determine eligibility for local EAS subsidies. Having worked with local MPOs in my district, I am confident that these determinations should be made at the state and local level. A Lancaster County rank seventh in the state for air service demand and generates over 876,000 annual originating air trips. Additionally, these air travelers pay more than $20 million per year in aviation taxes. Lancaster County with over 11,000 businesses and a population of over 472,000 needs and deserves commercial air service. This legislation will ensure that communities like Lancaster County continue to receive quality local air service. I urge Congress to support this legislation.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, 84 percent of Americans say they think Scott Peterson should be held responsible for the deaths of his wife, Lacy, and their unborn son, Connor. I agree. Criminals who kill an unborn baby in the act of a crime should be held accountable. On January 1, 1999, Deanna Mitts was 8 months pregnant. And after celebrating New Year's with her family, Deanna, her 3 year old daughter, Kayla, and her unborn daughter, were killed by a bomb explosion in their Connersville, Pennsylvania home. Joseph Minerd, the father of the unborn child was arrested for Deanna and Kayla's murders but is not being held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. That is not right. If Scott Peterson should be held accountable, so should Joseph Minerd. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make sure that Joseph answers to all 3 of these deaths under Federal law. The bill would protect the innocent and defenseless against crime, and it would hold accountable the Scott Petersons and Joseph Minerds of this world. I urge the House to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, on March 23 the Federal Department of Transportation decided to yank funding from the Lancaster Airport in my district, denying the airport of its ability to provide commercial air services. The Department operates a program called the Essential Air Services Program which provides subsidies to airlines that serve smaller markets that would otherwise go without commercial service. But the Department of Transportation is wrong in this case. The 68-mile route it chose between Route 30 to Philadelphia International Airport takes 3 hours to drive or more. The route most commonly used is 80 miles and takes about half that time to drive. This week I am introducing a bill to remedy this wrong. The Essential Air Services Eligibility Fairness Act will make sure the highway mileage between a place and the nearest hub airport will be determined by the most commonly used route between the two airports. It will protect, in my case, 876,000 air trips that originate every year in Lancaster; and it will protect the other small market airports around the country that provide convenient air service for millions.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in May 2002, the Shan Women's Action Network and the Shan Human Rights Foundation issued a highly disturbing report entitled License to Rape. The State Department followed that report with further investigation into the issue. I traveled to the Thai-Burma border in January of this year and heard further horrifying testimonies about Burmese military regime's use of systematic rape against ethnic minorities. In addition, refugees and others shared personal experiences about watching the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) soldiers kill their families or neighbors in front of them. One eight-year-old orphan I met saw both parents brutally murdered while he watched. Other refugees reported the SPDC's use of ethnic minorities, including women and young children, as human landmine sweepers and as forced labor. These human rights abuses MUST be stopped. To add further proof to the myriad reliable reports by both local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Refugees International recently released a report further documenting the SPDC military's use of rape as a weapon of war against ethnic women. The new report is entitled No Safe Place: Burma's Army and the Rape of Ethnic Women. No Safe Place documents the SPDC's use of rape against women from the Karen, Karenni, Mon, Tavoyan and Shan ethnic groups and indicates that the rapes are ``a pattern of brutal abuse designed to control, terrorize, and harm ethnic nationality populations through their women.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter a portion of Refugees International's report into the Congressional Record. Thank you. No Safe Place: Burma's Army and the Rape of Ethnic Women ii. recommendations Refugees International recommends that: The United Nations The UN Commission on Human Rights condemn rape and other forms of sexual violence against ethnic women and girls by Burma's military in its annual resolution on the situation of human rights in Burma. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ensure that any investigation of rape and other forms of sexual violence inside Burma conducted by UN officials is done by experts on sexual violence, with guarantees of full access, complete and ongoing security for all witnesses and victims and a follow up mechanism to verify compliance. UNHCR assist the Royal Thai Government in providing a safe environment for Burmese fleeing human rights abuses with a special emphasis on women and children. The UNHCR insist that women and girls fleeing rape and other forms of sexual violence in Burma qualify for protection and assistance in Thailand. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women request a special periodic report from the State Peace and Development Council focusing on the constitutional, legal, administrative, military, and practical measures taken to eliminate rape and other forms of violence against women. The Committee should convene a special session to engage in dialogue with the SPDC about this special periodic report. The Royal Thai Government (RTG) The RTG recognize women and girls fleeing rape in Burma who seek refuge in Thailand as legitimate refugees who have a right to protection and assistance, and not as ``illegal migrants.'' The RTG ensure that Burmese survivors of rape and other forms of sexual violence in Thailand, whether in camps or working as ``migrants,'' receive critical physical and mental health services, especially focused on gender-based abuses. The RTG cease the practice of repatriating or deporting asylum seekers without prior screening to ascertain whether they have valid claims for asylum. The RTG adhere to the definition of ``refugee'' according to the 1951 Convention on the Status relating to Refugees and the 1967 protocol--a definition that has attained the level of customary international law--and should not create a new standard for determining when those seeking refuge are entitled to enter its borders. The State Peace and Development Council The SPDC stop all military buildup and begin demilitarizing the ethnic areas promptly. The SPDC fulfill its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDWA), which it ratified in 1998. This includes ceasing all practices and policies which discriminate against women, including violence against women. The SPDC ratify the Optional Protocol to CEDAW. The SPDC fulfill its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which it ratified in 1991, which prohibits gender-based violence against children. Governments Governments demand that the SPDC demilitarize ethnic areas. Governments maintain economic sanctions and withhold overseas development and loan or debt assistance until significant improvements in the human rights situation, including a decrease in violence against women, is independently verified. Governments continue to pressure the SPDC to engage in meaningful, substantive discussions with the National League of Democracy and representatives of ethnic nationalities. NGOs and International Organizations Organizations lend support to the international campaign to stop rape and other forms of sexual violence by the Burmese military through public statements and advocacy. International organizations conducting research on rape, other forms of sexual violence and other human rights abuses coordinate with grassroots, indigenous organizations to ensure the comprehensive and safe collection of information. Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) seek to build the capacity of indigenous groups to document abuses perpetrated against their own communities. Organizations increase efforts to reach and assist displaced populations with critical needs. iii. introduction ``I have waited many years to tell you this story,'' one Karenni woman lamented as she told of witnessing her thirteen-year-old sister's rape and then described how the Burmese soldiers beat and attempted to rape her. She is just one of countless women from Burma's ethnic minority groups, sometimes known as ethnic nationalities, with a chilling tale of abuse at the hands of her country's army. In June 2002, the Shan Human Rights Foundation and Shan Women's Action Network (SWAN) released a report, License to Rape, documenting 625 cases of rape and sexual violence. The report began a movement to focus on Burma's use of rape as a weapon of war, while also highlighting the relentless, ongoing campaign of human rights abuses against Burma's ethnic minorities. Based on interviews conducted by indigenous women's and human rights groups, and compiled and written by indigenous women, License to Rape provided credible proof of the brutality of the Burmese army, in the voices of those very women affected most by the brutalities. Following the release of this important report, the international community expressed unprecedented but long overdue outrage. The U.S. State Department declared its indignation at the phenomenon documented in the report and called for an international investigation, while sending its own investigator to the Thai/Burmese border; members of the U.S. Congress and officials from other governments publicly condemned the Burmese military's actions. Pressure for the United Nations to investigate the prevalence and systematic nature of the rapes grew until the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma raised the issue with Burma's military regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Various governmental officials, NGOs, and UN personnel began talking about the possibility and logistics of an independent investigation. Meanwhile, in Thailand, the Royal Thai Government (RTG), concerned that such an outcry would jeopardize its policy of engagement with the SPDC, ordered those NGOs that participated in compiling the report to close their offices indefinitely. Although License to Rape has received a notable amount of attention, the international community, including officials from various governments, suggested to Refugees International that additional evidence could assist in generating further action. It is important to ask why. Some suggested that a report about the experience of indigenous women, compiled by indigenous women, could not be objective. Others proposed that the report, written by a small, unknown group, was not credible enough. The authors of this report reject those propositions. Few are as well-qualified to document and describe rape as those women from the brutalized communities. International advocacy without grassroots knowledge, participation, and decision- making is of extremely limited use. Consequently, the purpose of this report is not to ``bolster'' the claims contained in License to Rape. Rather, the purpose is both to support and build on the movement and activity generated by SWAN, and to expand the scope of understanding regarding the brutal phenomenon of rape in Burma to include a broader profile of ethnic nationalities. License to Rape documented the widespread use of rape against Shan ethnic women. Rape is not confined to Shan State or to Shan women. The Burmese military uses rape against many ethnic nationalities for the express purpose of brutalizing ``insurgents,'' quashing ethnic dissent, and demoralizing and destroying ethnic communities. Refugees International decided that our approach would be to broaden the scope of the Shan report by investigating the prevalence of the Burmese military's use of rape against other ethnic groups. RI's field mission focused the research on the Karen, Karenni, Mon, and Tavoyan ethnic groups. In applying our expertise in international advocacy on behalf of war-affected populations, RI sought to examine the extent of the use of rape against a variety of Burma's ethnic nationalities and determine if the abuses were widespread and/or systematic. Karen, Karenni, Mon and Tavoyan women and men, as well as several Shan individuals, were courageous in sharing their personal stories and observations. From the 26 individuals interviewed, 43 rapes or attempted rapes were described, 23 of them confirmed by victim or witness testimony or physical evidence. Stories of rapes and other human rights abuses and the resulting mental and physical ailments dominated the interviews. Individuals still in pain from torture and beatings talked about the violations suffered by them and their families and friends. For many, the decision to leave Burma was clearly tied to the rape and other abuses they and their family members had experienced. One survivor spoke for many when she said, ``To this day, I cannot sleep at night thinking about what happened.'' The time is ripe for the international community to hear their voices and take action.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, since March of last year, a shroud has covered a plaque on the front of the Chester County Courthouse in my District. By court order, a work crew placed a piece of sheet metal over the plaque which has hung on the wall of the courthouse for nearly a century. This week, the Federal 3rd Circuit Court heard arguments about the future of this plaque. Mr. Speaker, something is very wrong with our courts in this country. They say that child pornography is perfectly legal as long as real kids were not hurt making it, but the Ten Commandments are so offensive we have to cover them up. I am not exaggerating. Mr. Speaker, something is very, very wrong with America's court system when child pornography is protected, but the Ten Commandments have to be covered up. The 3rd Circuit Court should do the right thing. They should allow the plaque to stay right where it is.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, right after September 11, Russia stood with us as an ally in the war on terrorism, but recent weeks have shown that Russia may have another agenda. Russian companies have sold military equipment to Iraq, equipment used to harm American soldiers. Russian officials were told about this in June of 2002, but did nothing. The Russian Government continues to maintain friendly relations with Kim Jong Il of North Korea, a fact that only encourages this regime's dangerous actions. Russia has also been involved in helping Iran develop two nuclear facilities that are part of a nuclear weapons program. This is in addition to building Iran a nuclear reactor and providing them with low-enriched uranium in 1995. Russia is deeply involved in arming terrorist-sponsoring countries. Arming rogue regimes cannot be compatible with being an American ally. We must make it clear that Russia cannot arm America's enemies and call itself an ally. If Russia wants to be an ally, it is time to start acting like one.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in Iraq today heroes are being made and freedoms won. Our soldiers in Iraq are joining a proud group of veterans who have fought to defend freedom and our country in the past. This morning I would like to share a few words of Father Denis Edward O'Brien, chaplain of the United States Marine Corps, that honor our Nation's veterans. He said, ``It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.'' There is a time to fight for freedom. Today our Nation's veterans are defending freedom and this Nation in Iraq. Two little words that would mean a lot to them are ``thank you.''

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his concern for Iraqi civilians during coalition military operations. I share his concern but want to know what he says about Iraq's treatment of civilians. American troops risk their lives to avoid civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein has surrounded himself and his troops with innocent civilians because he knows this is the only way to slow our advance through Iraq. What has Mr. Annan said about Hussein's use of human shields, or of hospitals as military headquarters? Nothing. While American troops are under extreme scrutiny, Saddam Hussein draws none from the United Nations. The lack of scrutiny during wartime is the same complacency employed by the U.N. since 1991. We should not be surprised but we should keep it in mind as we think about our role in the U.N. after this war is over.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week has reminded us that war is serious business. Each day we see our brave soldiers on TV making great progress against Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime. Now, more than ever, the troops need our support and encouragement. Mr. Speaker, we should stay united behind our troops. Our troops do not need to hear criticism of their mission from this body or this Capitol. When their Nation's leaders question their mission, I can tell you, as a combat veteran, it is discouraging. It is tough to stay focused when the leaders you look to for strength are not in your corner. Most people disregard professional protestors, especially when they see their placards saying ``capitalism is the problem.'' But when they hear their leaders criticizing their mission to liberate the people of Iraq from a brutal tyrant and his thugs who rule by terror, that is disheartening. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop making our Capitol building a platform to criticize the war and our troops. That only hurts our troops in the field.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, with the war to disarm Saddam Hussein having begun, our thoughts and prayers are with our troops and all the people of that region, hoping that this brutal tyrant will be disarmed and removed with minimal impact on innocent civilians. We are seeing the rise of protesters, some of them even protesting against capitalism according to their placards, and although we respect the right of protesters to peacefully protest, and we fight and die to preserve these freedoms, the freedom of speech and religion, press, assembly, as well as to protest, we must remember that our freedoms were not won with poster paint. They were won by the blood of patriots, those willing to sacrifice and risk their lives to give us and preserve our freedoms. Let us treat each other with dignity and respect even though we disagree, but let us also be grateful to our veterans and those putting their lives in harm's way for their service to our country as they fight to protect and provide freedom for us and others around the world.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, our bankruptcy laws are in desperate need of reform. That is why I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, up for a vote today. Last year we had some problems with a similar bill. An unrelated provision was inserted into that bill last year during the conference committee and that provision had nothing to do with protecting consumers or preventing bankruptcy abuse. Instead, it would have sent the right to peaceful protests into bankruptcy. Thanks to the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), I am pleased that this year we have a clean bill to consider once again. I commend the chairman for his tireless efforts to reform our bankruptcy laws, and I urge our colleagues to support this bill to reform the bankruptcy system.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last night the President laid out a compelling case for immediate action against Saddam Hussein. After 12 years of denial and deception, trust in his sanity and in his restraint is not an option. The President addressed not only the American people but the Iraqi people, not only our military but its military. And he made it clear that our problem is not with the Iraqi people, that we do not want to harm the Iraqi people, that we will help the Iraqi people rebuild their great country. Our problem is with Saddam Hussein. He has chosen this moment. He chose to deny and deceive the international community for 12 years. He chose to use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, and he chose to engage in mass murder. Now he has one last choice: go into exile or be removed and disarmed by force. If he chooses force, America and other free nations must forcibly remove him, his murderous regime and his arsenal. Our military will take great care to spare the lives of innocent Iraqis. My hope and prayer is that the Iraqi dictator will take action to do the same.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today, our colleagues on the other side of the building will vote on a bill banning the barbaric procedure of partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is one of the most violent and gruesome acts known to mankind. Despite what its supporters say, several thousand times a year in the United States healthy babies and healthy mothers in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy undergo this horrific procedure. As we seek to lead the world against tyranny and in support of basic human rights, we must recommit ourselves to promoting the basic human rights of the most vulnerable among us, the most innocent and defenseless members of the human race. We have a chance to stand up for what is right, to stand against what is wrong. We have a chance to defend those who need it most, to stand against those who seek to harm them. Partial-birth abortion is not rare, partial-birth abortion is not safe, partial-birth abortion does not foster a respect for human life. It degrades us all. Partial-birth abortion must be banned. Let us pass the bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5. Medical liability reform is one issue on which we cannot afford to waste time. In my home State of Pennsylvania, medical liability is not just a problem; it's a crisis. Medical liability rates are up 81 percent in Pennsylvania, and higher for some specialties. Every year, $22 billion is sucked out of the American economy due to excessive medical liability claims. In Pennsylvania alone, there are $1.2 billion in payouts each year. That's $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the Commonwealth. As a result, insurance companies are fleeing and many doctors cannot afford--financially nor professionally--to continue to practice medicine in the State. Last year, Chester County Hospital, in my district, came very close to taking the drastic step of closing its maternity ward when insurance for the obstetricians skyrocketed. The doctors reported that they would have to discontinue offering care at that hospital. Thankfully, the hospital stepped in at the last minute with a temporary solution and actually put these independent physicians on their payroll in order to provide coverage for them through the hospital captive insurance company. Since Chester County Hospital does twenty-one hundred or so deliveries a year, this load was too big for other providers in the area to pick up. Women would have had to leave Chester County to have their babies. Lancaster General Hospital, also in my district, had to abandon plans to open a new clinic to serve the poor in Lancaster City when it learned that it would have to pay $1.5 million more for malpractice insurance. This is unacceptable. We cannot wait any longer to address this crisis. Pennsylvania is not alone. In fact, most States face this same crisis. Patient access to health care is on the decline. It is alarming. Unless we can reign in the costs of medical liability, men, women, and children across the country will suffer from lack of access to health care. Our health care system cannot support nor afford the big payouts of medical liability lawsuits. H.R. 5 is not simply an important bill, but a critical one. It will inject predictability and fairness into the medical liability process. The bottom line is this: If you care about patient access to health care and are concerned about the rampant increase in the cost of health care, vote for this bill that is before us today. Vote for H.R. 5.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, in the 1990s we realized that tough sentencing for criminals reduced crime rates. But this year alone, roughly 600,000 of those prisoners will be released; and statistics show that over 60 percent of these parolees will return to prison within 2 years. To combat this trend, Prison Fellowship, a faith-based group, was formed and began to offer job-skills training, drug treatment, and the opportunity to cultivate character and faith. The results have been dramatic. Just 8 percent of their participants have returned to prison within 2 years. It simply produces productive rehabilitated members of society. But the forces of the left seek to undo the progress by suing Prison Fellowship. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have sued them because of this. The left needs to learn that faith- based programs work many times better than government programs. They are seeking to build a more healthy society.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a trip to Thailand, the Thai-Burma border, Laos and Vietnam with U.S.-based NGO Jubilee Campaign, and with Lord David Alton of the British House of Lords. We met with government officials, NGOs, and refugees, in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam to establish relationships and raise human rights concerns, particularly trafficking and religious freedom issues. I would like to begin with commending the people of Thailand for their well-deserved reputation for hospitality. I flew to Thailand on Thai Airways and had a wonderful experience. During our visit throughout Thailand, we were met with warm hospitality. It is this tradition and culture of hospitality that has made Thailand a safe haven for the refugees fleeing death and destruction in Burma. I urge the current Thai Administration not to pursue policies that would damage that reputation of wonderful hospitality. In Thailand, we met with organizations working with refugees along the Thai-Burma border and with the Internally Displaced People (IDPS) inside the jungles of Burma. The situation in Burma is dire, and I would not hesitate to call it, according to international legal definitions, genocide. In Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as ``any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'' Reports make clear that the ironically- named State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) of Burma, the ruling military junta, has engaged in a deliberate policy to eliminate the ethnic minorities. A scorched earth policy, destroying entire villages along with food storage and production sources, systematic rape, the use of humans, including women and children, as landmine sweepers, forced labor, also known as slavery, the refusal to allow the duly elected leader of the country to take office, and many other abuses have turned the country of Burma into one large concentration camp. Sadly, the international community has turned a deaf ear to the cries of the ethnic minorities, the refugees, the IDPS, the democracy activists. Why is it that the international community fought with weapons to stop the genocide in former Yugoslavia in Europe but is ignoring the one occurring in Southeast Asia? There are a large number of organizations that carefully track the violations in Burma so there is no shortage of evidence of the human rights abuses the SPDC commits. The Karen Human Rights Group, the Shan Human Rights Foundation, the Shan Women's Action Network, the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, Christians Concerned for Burma, Partners Relief and Development, and many other Burma groups produce reports of current and past atrocities committed by the SPDC. We were given copies of over one dozen reports which provide detailed documentation of these brutal policies. I urge my colleagues to read these reports to gain further understanding of the situation in Burma. My delegation visited refugee camps north of Mae Sot, Thailand and spoke with Karen refugees, Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims who all had fled the attacks of the SPDC on their communities. We saw landmine victims, orphans and school children, who all had suffered from the actions of the SPDC. The Thai government has been gracious in caring for these refugees, often with little help from the international community, yet there are many IDPs hiding in the jungles of Burma who need a safe place to go. I respectfully request that the Thai government allow the IDPs to enter the camps and be registered as refugees. In addition, I respectfully request that the Thai government allow the UNHCR to establish a permanent presence within the camps to help administer the needs of the refugees. Mr. Speaker, our visit with the refugee orphans was both heart- wrenching and a delight. It was a delight to see these young children and to hear the songs they sang to us, but it was heart-wrenching to hear the amount of tragedy in these young lives. One group of four children, the oldest was 12, had lost their father; their mother could not take care of them so she brought them to the orphanage. An eight- year-old boy, who could not smile, had lost both parents, was then trafficked across the border to Thailand, somehow escaped from his ``owners,'' and reached the safety of the refugee camps. It is heartbreaking to know that many of the young children, including the orphans, in the refugee camps had watched family or community members being killed by the SPDC, wounded or killed by landmine explosions, raped, or even burned alive. The drug problem in Southeast Asia can largely be traced back to the SPDC regime in Burma. The military runs, controls and earns the profits off the drug trade of a reported 1 billion plus methamphetamine pills per year. These drugs have had a huge impact on the young people of the region, so it is vital that we work even more closely with the Thai government in fighting against the drug trade controlled by the Burmese military. There are reports of the SPDC forcing its soldiers to take drugs before attacking ethnic groups--captured SPDC military personnel sometimes have difficulty remembering what took place during an attack. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that those responsible for the genocide of the ethnic groups in Burma be held to account. The reports of atrocities are reminiscent of the Nazis, their blatant disregard for human life and their policies of extermination. The ethnic cleansing of Burma is an international tragedy and I call on the international community to send monitors to Burma, to pursue prosecution of those responsible for these crimes against humanity, to press for the immediate end to deportation of democracy groups back to certain death in Burma, to press strongly for the recognition of the democratically elected government of Burma, and to send international peacekeepers to Burma. I call on the United States government to assist the refugees in Thailand, to increase pressure on the military regime in Burma and those nations that assist the junta, and to further assist the democracy and humanitarian organizations focusing on assistance to the people of Burma. One practical way we can assist the refugees is by offering scholarship opportunities for the refugee students to study abroad--the refugees currently have no legal means to continue their education past middle or high school. While in Thailand, we also met with organizations assisting women and children, often ethnic minorities from Burma, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam, who are victims of trafficking. Many of these victims end up as such due to lack of educational and economic opportunities or lack of citizenship rights in their countries. Organizations, such as the New Life Center, provide counseling, health and medical advice and treatment, education and job skills opportunities--many of those at risk for being trafficked, after the assistance provided by NGOS, return to their communities to help educate women and children about trafficking, health, and other issues. Our meetings with Thai officials in Bangkok with the National Security Council, the Foreign Ministry and Members of the Thai Parliament were helpful and I look forward to working with these officials to resolve some of the issues we discussed, particularly the current concerns about forced repatriation of democracy and humanitarian groups working on Burma issues and the certain death they would face if deported back to Burma. Our delegation then traveled to Laos to meet with government officials and some church leaders regarding various human rights concerns and other issues. Laos is one of the poorest countries in the world and one of only four nations in the world (Laos, Cuba, North Korea and Serbia-Montenegro) that do not have Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status with the U.S. Religious freedom issues have been a major concern in Laos, but reports from various organizations and officials suggest that the problem is slowly being addressed and there has been progress. We met with officials from the Foreign Ministry, the National Assembly, the Lao Front for National Construction and, the Women's Union, and NGO representatives. The openness and frankness of our discussions with officials in Laos was greatly encouraging as was their desire to improve the development of their country. There is much poverty in Laos and after discussions with Laotian officials, U.S. government officials, and some NGOS, it was clear that it is important that the United States extend Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to Laos. Countries, such as Saudi Arabia, with horrendous human rights records do have NTR; though there is more progress needed, the government of Laos allows people of faith to worship, is working to help end trafficking in persons, has cooperated on missing persons issues, and desires to work for the development of opportunities for women and the poor. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the extension of NTR to Laos. The delegation traveled on to Vietnam to meet with government officials and representatives of a Buddhist organization and a Christian organization. In all meetings, the same issues were raised, and it was clear that the Central Party had a strong hold over the country. We had a very helpful meeting with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we look forward to interacting with them on a number of issues. In addition we met with the Government Board for Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs and plan to raise cases of religious persecution and trafficking with them. Prior to our visit, the Central Party had its Seventh Annual Plenum meeting, of which a major discussion point was religion. Unfortunately, a key directive from that meeting, referred to in a news report from the South China Morning Post, calls for religious people to be patriotic by `` `volunteering' in the struggle to `foil all attempts of hostile forces who abuse religious and ethnic minority issues to sabotage national unity and act against [the] political regime.' '' This most likely means further attempts at control of religious groups in Vietnam. Recent reports by a number of reliable organizations reveal increasing harassment, persecution and imprisonment of religious believers. We hope that the relationships we formed with Vietnamese officials during our visit will help resolve some of the current religious cases. In addition, during our visit to Hanoi we had the privilege of visiting the Hanoi Hilton, the notorious prison where members of our armed services were held during the Vietnam War and where Vietnamese citizens previously were imprisoned by the French military. The glass shards on the walls, the placards of personal stories, the stocks where prisoners were unable to move, the isolation cells and the torture devices were sobering reminders of the suffering of many people in Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I had an excellent visit to Southeast Asia and I hope to return soon. I would like to commend the US Embassy officials in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam for their extraordinary work and assistance on this visit; it would not have been as successful without them. I urge my colleagues to join me in pressing for freedom for the people of Burma, continuing to strengthen our relationship with our close friends in Thailand, and furthering the relationship between our nation and the peoples of Laos and Vietnam.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 1-year anniversary of the massacres in Gujarat, India, by Hindu extremists and extend my sympathies to those families who have suffered so terribly at the hands of the extremists. Extremism is on the rise in a number of countries including India where leading figures and officials have directly or indirectly supported attacks against and massacres of moderate Muslims, Dalits, also called ``untouchables,'' Christians, and other minorities. The perpetrators of these crimes must be brought to justice. I have a number of excellent reports here and in my office from human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, ASSIST, Amnesty International, local Indian NGOs detailing the attacks in Gujarat; and I urge Members to read these reports, respond to the issues facing the people of India today. We must support those who would further democracy and the rule of law and freedom in India, not stifle and suppress it; and these violent extremists must be brought to justice.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 534 and the rule for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his principled leadership on this issue. The history of cloning is replete with defects, deformity, and death. Dolly the sheep was the 277th try. By now, everyone knows of the euthanized death of Dolly. She died on Valentine's Day a couple of weeks ago at the age of 6, half the normal life expectancy for sheep. Alan Coleman, a Singapore-based scientist who helped clone Dolly, said, ``I think it highlights more than ever the foolishness of those who want to legalize human cloning. In the case of humans, it would be scandalous to go ahead, given our knowledge about the long-term effects of cloning.'' If cloning is not safe for animals, how can it be good for humans? President Reagan said in 1983 that every legislator, every doctor, every citizen, needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life or whether to embrace an ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a Nation we must choose between the sanctity-of-life ethic and the quality-of-life ethic. If we allow the therapeutic cloning of human embryos for experimentation, we will devalue the entire system of ethics of this country. We will have endorsed the idea that it is okay to treat human life like a commodity. I am not willing to make that choice. I am not willing to say that we should create a class of human beings to be used as human guinea pigs and laboratory rats. We have seen that happen before in Nazi Germany with experiments on concentration camp victims, and in Tuskegee, Alabama, where our own U.S. Government experimented on African Americans, infecting them with syphilis in search of a cure. We find these stories morally abhorrent. But what will history say about us if we fail to learn the lessons of the past and if we knowingly do the same thing to tiny little humans again? The Greenwood substitute would allow the creation of cloned human embryos as long as the embryo is destroyed within 14 days and never implanted in the womb. Even that phony restriction is lifted within 10 years of enactment. It will result in the creation of a human embryo. We need to stop playing word games and admit that serious issues are at stake here. This vote will determine whether we as a Nation will affirm the dignity of human life or reject it. Support the Weldon- Stupak bill.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, February 27, the House will take up the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), a bill to prohibit the creation of human embryos by cloning. This is the same bill that the House debated on July 31, 2001. On that occasion, our colleague Mr. Greenwood offered a substitute amendment that would have permitted the human cloning (the cloning of human embryos), but attempted to prohibit initiating a pregnancy by implanting such a cloned human embryo in a womb. The House decisively rejected the Greenwood Substitute, and then adopted the Weldon-Stupak bill overwhelmingly, 265-162. Although 64 members of the Democratic caucus voted to pass the Weldon-Stupak bill, to our disappointment, Democratic Leader Gephardt voted in opposition. However, it is noteworthy that when Mr. Gephardt appeared on NBC's Meet the Press less than three weeks later, on August 19, 2001, he appeared to have had a change of heart. Although host Tim Russert did not ask about cloning, Mr. Gephardt volunteered this remarkable statement: ``Obviously, we don't want cloning. . . . We passed a law saying no cloning and I think that's the law that we ought to follow.'' The only bill that had been passed pertaining to cloning, of course, was the Weldon-Stupak bill (the House had emphatically rejected the pro-cloning Greenwood Substitute). It seemed that Mr. Gephardt was taking credit for what the House had done, even though he had voted against it just three weeks earlier. But be that as it may, we certainly agree with Mr. Gephardt's conclusion that the ban that the House passed (the Weldon-Stupak bill) is indeed ``the law that we ought to follow.'' We urge you to oppose the Greenwood Substitute, which would permit what President Bush called cloned human ``embryo farms,'' and to support the Weldon- Stupak bill, the only bill that would really say ``no cloning.'' The complete transcript of the exchange between Mr. Russert and Mr. Gephardt follows. [Excerpt from NBC Meet The Press, August 19, 2001] Mr. Tim Russert: Let me turn to the issue of stem cell embryo research. The president decided that we should look at the stem cells that already exist, but not allow any development of any new stem cells. You disagree with him. Why? Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.): I just--I don't think we know where this research is going. We don't even know how many stem cell segments are out there now. He said 60. Some of the researchers don't even know that there are 60 in place now. This is an emerging field. Look, if you have somebody in your family who has Alzheimer's, who has diabetes, who has cancer, you want to find the answers to these problems. The researchers believe there may be real answers to many of these diseases over the next years. We shouldn't limit the areas that we're going to look at. We ought to see where the research can go. Obviously, we don't want cloning. Nobody is for cloning. But we need to use the research that's out there to get the answers to these diseases. Boy, if you've got somebody in your family that's really ill, you want to know the research might find an answer. Mr. Russert: The public seems to support the president overwhelmingly. Let me show you the latest USA Today poll. Sixty percent approve of the president's decision; just 34 percent disagree. And there's a simple question to be asked: When do you think life begins? Rep. Gephardt: Well, the Supreme Court said, after the--you know, somewhere between the first and second trimester. Mr. Russert: But when do you think? Rep. Gephardt: I think the Supreme Court probably had it right. And I think we ought to use the research that can be done on stem cells to find the answers to these dread diseases. You know, try . . . Mr. Russert: Wait, wait, wait. This is important. When you first came to Congress, you proposed a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion. And you said on the House floor, ``Life begins at conception.'' You've now changed your mind? Rep. Gephardt: I think that the thing to do here is to follow the Supreme Court. I think their decision said it very clearly, and I think that's the policy that ought to be followed. I think on this stem cell research decision, we've got to let the research go to where it can, to find the answers to these problems. Mr. Russert: Including using the frozen embryos that are created by in vitro fertilization clinics. Rep. Gephardt: I think we ought to let the research find the answers to these problems. Mr. Russert: So you would use those? Rep. Gephardt: We passed a law saying no cloning and I think that's the law that we ought to follow. Mr. Russert: But these are stem cell embryos created by in vitro fertilization clinics that are discarded if not used for research. Rep. Gephardt: I think we ought to let the research find the answers to these problems.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as of today there has not been a vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President has the power to appoint judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, advice and consent. Those two little words represent the difference between an organized process of judicial nomination and sheer chaos. President Bush first nominated Miguel Estrada on May 9, 2001, 18 months ago. For 18 long months, we have waited for the confirmation of Mr. Estrada. Time is running out. For the sake of the integrity of the nomination process, for the sake of decency and simple fairness, the process must move forward. The American people sent us to Washington to get a job done, not to waste time. It is time to vote on Miguel Estrada. The American people do not want obstructionism.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, nearly a century ago, George Santayana wrote, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' This is a big world we live in, but if there are two countries in this world that should remember the consequences of coddling tyrants, they are France and Germany. But these two countries seem to have forgotten. The world is watching as Saddam Hussein amasses weapons so powerful they could wipe out whole armies, whole cities and, given time, perhaps even whole nations; and we know he will use them because he has done so before. But France and Germany seem to be doing everything in their power to foil our plans to stop him before it is too late. Is it because these two countries have seen so much blood that they just cannot stand the thought of another war? Or is it because so much of Saddam's technology has come from Germany? Perhaps it is because France is Saddam's third largest trading partner. France and Germany's recklessness has even risked the safety of an ally and threatened the cohesiveness of NATO itself, although I am glad to say they have come to their senses there. It is time for Germany and France to decide where they stand. Are they on the side of tyrants, or are they on the side of freedom? There is no other choice.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the funding for abstinence-until-marriage education in this bill, and I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this important issue. Today, the results of a landmark Zogby International survey assessing parental attitudes on sex education have been released to the public. The Zogby poll reveals strong parental approval for character-based, abstinence-until-marriage programs and proves that parents soundly reject the goals and content of so-called ``comprehensive'' sex education. The results are available online at www.whatparentsthink.com According to the Zogby poll, 73.5 percent of parents approve or strongly approve of abstinence-centered sex education. 61.1 percent of parents disapprove or strongly disapprove of so-called comprehensive'' or ``safe sex'' education. 75.3 percent of parents disapprove or strongly disapprove of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sex education curriculum. When parents are accurately informed about what ``comprehensive'' sex education actually entails, which includes distributing condoms in schools, they make it clear that they do not want their children to be inundated with ``safesex'' propaganda. Instead, parents want their children to be taught self-respect, self-control and abstinence-until- marriage. This survey marks the first time parents have been polled using the exact language from comprehensive sex education guidelines. The major weaknesses of previous polls are their misleading questions and fuzzy interpretations. In this poll, Zogby used exact definitions and verbatim wording from the comprehensive sex education curricula developed and endorsed by such groups as the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and Planned Parenthood. The Zogby organization also found that: All demographic groupings strongly disapprove of comprehensive sex education--especially non- white minorities (Hispanics and Asians). And, 70 percent of parents strongly disapprove of their teens getting contraceptives without their approval. Mr. Speaker, America's parents have spoken. They want abstinence- until-marriage education. This bill ensures that the values many American parents hold dear:--the values of abstinence and marital faithfulness are not determined by taxpayer-funded ``safe-sex'' propaganda in schools. I encourage my colleagues to join America's parents in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. Coalition for Adolescent Sexual Health--Summary of Key Findings Background Zogby International conducted the survey on behalf of the Coalition for Adolescent Sexual Health, an ad hoc association formed exclusively for the purpose of conducting the poll. Private foundations that wish to remain anonymous paid for the cost of the survey. The random sample survey was conducted January 11 to 15. A total of 1,245 adult parents of children ages 5 to 18 were interviewed with an over-sampling of African Americans. The margins of error were: Total MOA = +/-2.8 percent; Whites MOA