Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, those of us who have served our country in war understand in our hearts what every American understands in his head. We understand what it says--carved in stone--on the Korean War Memorial down at the other end of the National Mall. We understand that FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. For more than two centuries, Americans have sacrificed in war for their families, for their communities, and for their nation. Many thousands have died. But of those who did not die, few have gone through what our friend and colleague Sam Johnson went through in Vietnam. For many long years he suffered torture, imprisonment, and solitary confinement. They worked on him relentlessly to break his spirit. But the spirit of Sam Johnson could not be broken. He stood up to his captors with dignity and with grace. He refused to betray his country. And he refused to give up on his God. I believe Sam would tell you, if you asked, that it was the Lord in heaven who saw him through those dark days in the Hanoi Hilton. But his reliance on our Creator does not make him less of a hero or less of a man. It makes him one of the greatest living heroes in the United States of America. And it makes him an example to us all. The Sam Johnsons of this world are few and far between. But somehow, this country seems to find one when one is needed. Another hero worthy of being recognized is Captain Edward Davis from the U.S. Navy, retired. Captain Davis, a constituent of mine, also served our country during the Vietnam War and was a Prisoner of War from 1965 to 1972. Captain Davis served in VA-152. His decorations include three Silver Star medals, the Legion of Merit with Combat Citation, four Bronze Stars with valor device, five Air Medals, two Purple Hearts and three Navy Commendation medals. He retired from the Navy in 1987. His service to America should be remembered. I am honored to have him reside in my congressional district. I pray that next time around, whether it's in Iraq or somewhere else, the enemies of freedom will once again find themselves looking in the face of someone like Sam Johnson or Ed Davis, someone who is living proof that what this country stands for is right, and just, and good.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, those of us who have served our country in the war understand in our hearts what every American understands in his head. We understand the words carved in stone down at the Korean War memorial, the words, ``Freedom is not free.'' Thousands of Americans have died in a war, but of those who did not die, few have gone through what our friend and colleague Sam Johnson went through in Vietnam. For years he suffered torture, imprisonment and solitary confinement. They worked on him relentlessly to break his spirit, but the spirit of Sam Johnson could not be broken. He refused to betray his country. He refused to give up his faith in God. I had the privilege of visiting in that prison where he was in solitary 2 weeks ago. It was a horrible place. Sam is a living hero. He is an example to us all. He is living proof that what America stands for is right and just and good. I thank Sam for his service to our country, and as a fellow vet, I salute him. Madam Speaker, those of us who have served our country in war understand in our hearts what every American understands in his head. We understand what it says--carved in stone--on the Korean War Memorial down at the other end of the National Mall. The words ``FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.'' Thousands of families have died in war. But of those who did not die, few have gone through what our friend and colleague Sam Johnson went through in Vietnam. For years he suffered torture, imprisonment, and solitary confinement. They worked on him relentlessly to break his spirit. But the spirit of Sam Johnson could not be broken. He refused to betray his country. And he refused to give up his belief & faith in his God. I visited that prison 2 weeks ago in Hanoi. Sam is a living hero. He is an example to us all. Thank you Sam. Sam, I salute you.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the ethnic minorities of Burma, otherwise known as Myanmar. In January, I visited the Thai-Burma border and met with refugees, democracy activists, prisoner-of-conscience groups and others working to help the people of Burma. Sadly, the international community has failed to recognize that there is, under international legal definitions, a campaign of genocide against the ethnic minorities by the ruling SPDC dictatorship in Burma. We met with victims' groups, land mine victims, orphans, rape victims and others. One little boy I met was an 8-year-old orphan. He had seen both of his parents killed, then he was trafficked over the border into Thailand and there he escaped to the refugee camps. This little boy was so traumatized that he could not even smile. I saw many children like him. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government and the international community must do something to assist the people of Burma and stop the brutality. Otherwise, we will all be responsible for the successful genocide campaign ethnic cleansing going on by the vicious military of the SPDC.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last year, we in the House of Representatives voted to ban all cloning of humans. Tinkering with human life the way some propose to do is unethical, immoral, and wrong. It would treat little human beings as commodities to be created, experimented on, used, and destroyed. Of course, some people, like the Raelian cult, want to create clones and let them grow up. That too is wrong. There should be no cloning of humans at all. Let me read what Ronald Reagan had to say about the sanctity of life: ``Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social 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.'' Soon, Congress will be asked to choose between protecting some human lives and protecting all human lives. I pray we do the right thing.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, for 12 years we have amassed a mountain of proof that Saddam Hussein has both weapons of mass destruction and the missiles he needs to launch them. Right now, Saddam Hussein is violating a long string of binding U.N. resolutions. He continues to repeatedly violate the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, which amounts to a resumption of war. As we heard last evening, our President is determined to stop Saddam Hussein before it is too late by disarming him of weapons of mass destruction. But over and over we hear the President's critics say that he should not act without the United Nations. Now, President Bush agrees that the U.N. can be very helpful, but sometimes the U.N. does the wrong thing. Last year, the U.N. placed some of the world's worst human rights abusers on its Commission on Human Rights. Now, of all countries, Libya is going to chair that body. If that is not bad enough, Iraq, Iraq is in line to take over the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Could anything be more ludicrous? President Bush should do the right thing with or without the United Nations.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, just last week a beautiful young woman named Monique Brown died and went home to be with her Maker. Monique worked in my office as my legislative correspondent. A month ago Monique was released from the hospital just in time to get married, giving her husband Christopher the opportunity to love her and care for her at home. He did so with amazing integrity and dedication. But then Monique returned to the hospital, where she fell into a coma and soon passed away. Mr. Speaker, Monique was only 23 years old. She had a strong faith, and, though she wanted to live, the prospect of dying did not frighten her at all. In Psalm 39 David wrote, ``Show me, O Lord, my life's end and the number of my days; let me know how fleeting is my life. ``You have made my days a mere handbreadth; the span of my years is as nothing before You. ``But now, Lord, what do I look for? My hope is in You.'' Monique's hope was always in the Lord, but she does not need to hope anymore. She is now with her Lord.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, recently a religious group called the Raelians announced that they had cloned a human being, and despite all the press coverage they have received most observers are convinced this is a hoax. But true or not, this episode underscores the fact that human cloning is no longer limited to B movie science fiction. The technology exists. It may take hundreds of tries and it may result in dozens of horribly mutated human embryos and the violation of every standard of ethics and decency, but human cloning is very close to happening. Congress must act before it is too late. We need to pass a comprehensive human cloning ban into law immediately. The House did its job last year, passed a bill that died in the Senate. Now both Houses of Congress need to pass a comprehensive cloning ban. We need to stop this horror before it happens. The bill is being introduced today by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill, and I urge the House to pass it as soon as possible. It is still not too late for us to act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in opposition to this rule and make it clear that I support bankruptcy reform laws very much. But not this version, not with these words that have been inserted by the conference. They did take the reference to the FACE Act, standing for Free Access to Clinic Entrances, meaning an abortion clinic, that was passed in 1994; and we have the FACE language here in white and the identical words are in the bankruptcy reform bill. They did change ``reproductive health services'' to ``lawful goods or services.'' That is the one change. The key words are ``interferes with'' or ``physical obstruction.'' Under FACE, peaceful pro-life protesters are being arrested and sentenced to jail for just praying on a sidewalk outside an abortion clinic, or handing a leaflet to a woman as an alternative. One man was even successfully sued for leaving his business card on the clinic's door. Mr. Speaker, under FACE, people are being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. What we are doing in this bill is taking the identical language and putting it in the bankruptcy bill so now they cannot even file for bankruptcy, unfair bankruptcy. So we are condemning peaceful, innocent people who have a conscience to protest just to try to save the life of an unborn to a life of financial ruin. I have a couple of letters, one from Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, a good analysis of the bill, but let me just read the last paragraph: ``A large and nondischargeable debt, beyond one's capacity to pay, especially in the hands of a hostile and motivated creditor, is a financial death sentence. That is what even peaceful pro-life protesters have to fear if the proposed language is added to the existing aggressive judicial interpretation of FACE and similar laws.'' Mr. Speaker, I will submit the other letter from the Catholic Bishops for the Record. Bankruptcy Conference Report H.R. 333: SEC. 330. Nondischargibility of debts incurred through violations of law relating to the provision of lawful goods and services (a) Debts incurred through violations of law relating to the provision of lawful goods and services.--Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, as amended by section 224, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (18) by striking ``or'' at the end; (2) in paragraph (19) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(20) that results from any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State court, or contained in any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor (including any court-ordered damages, fine, penalty, or attorney fee or cost owned by the debtor), that arises from-- ``(A) the violation by the debtor of any Federal or State statutory law, including but not limited to violations of title 18, that results from intentional actions of the debtor that-- ``(i) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing lawful goods or services; ``(ii) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or ``(iii) intentionally damage or destroy the property of a facility, or attempt to do so, because such facility provides lawful goods or services, or intentionally damage or destroy the property of a place of religious worship; or ``(B) a violation of a court order or injunction that protects access to a facility that or a person who provides lawful goods or services or the provision of lawful goods or services if-- ``(i) such violation is intentional or knowing; or ``(ii) such violation occurs after a court has found that the debtor previously violated-- ``(I) such court order or such injunction; or ``(II) any other court order or injunction that protects access to the same facility or the same person; except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing, peaceful prayer, or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.''. (b) Restitution.--Section 523(a)(13) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or under the criminal law of a State'' after ``title 18''.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills that will provide increased aid to an important region of the world. Central Asia, specifically Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, is a beautiful region with a rich cultural heritage and an immense potential for stability and prosperity. In the years following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, there was hope and optimism about the future of Central Asia. Unfortunately, the United States stood back and watched without any consistent or substantive policy for the region. One by one, Central Asia States, most notably Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, have taken multiple and swift steps backwards toward oppressive police regimes that strangle freedom and democracy. But we must not lose sight of the progress that many of these countries have made over the past decade. The people of Central Asia are hungry for democracy, thirsty for economic prosperity, and strongly desire close relations with the U.S. If we do not comprehensively engage this region, the U.S. will have no standing to effect positive change and the downward trend will continue. We must build relationships with these countries--both economically and politically, and show them that freedom and democracy leads to prosperity. In doing this, we need to be an honest partner with them. We need to highlight when positive steps toward change are taken and send a clear message when respect for human rights is violated. With this said, I am introducing two bills that will promote engagement in the region. The first will authorize a pilot exchange program of academic internships in public policy for future leaders of the republics of Central Asia. This needed program will provide young people from this critical region with experience to better understand our form of democracy and public service, and practice their skills at working within associations, NGOS, and government. This initiative is intended to complement our existing exchange programs with Central Asia by targeting undergraduate and graduate students for six-month internships in public positions and utilizing a proven model that combines a four-day-a-week, on-the-job practicum with a day of class work. Today, demand for scholarships, exchanges, and fellowships for students from Central Asia far outstrips supply. Thousands of students--high school through graduate--have applied for limited slots. My bill will take the next step in expanding these opportunities. Central Asia has a high population of young people and the future of the region rests in their hands. If democracy is to succeed, if economic prosperity is to be realized, if human rights are to be protected, then we must patiently engage this region and provide its young people with greater opportunities. My second bill, entitled the ``Central Asia Child Health Improvement Act,'' will provide assistance for the prevention, treatment, and control of HIV/AlDs, tuberculosis, malaria, polio and other infectious diseases affecting children in Central Asia. Specifically, this bill will establish a series of partnerships between U.S. medical institutions and health service providers and such institutions and providers in the countries of Central Asia to carry out various child health programs. These partnerships will provide a telehealth network of medical information, services, and support to ensure health service providers in Central Asia can adequately respond to health concerns in the region. Like my previous bill establishing internship exchanges, this bill utilizes a proven model that is implemented elsewhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, we must actively and continuously engage Central Asia. The legislation I am introducing today takes an important step in this direction. Child health and education are two pillars to a prosperous, free, and democratic society. Let's begin to build these pillars in Central Asia. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor these bills.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, years ago when I was a world away fighting to contain the scourge of communism in Southeast Asia, a movement grew up here at home to protest what we were doing. Late in the war, one of the anthems of that movement was a song by John Lennon called ``Give Peace a Chance.'' We are not here to debate the Vietnam War, but we are discussing war and peace. Peace is a very precious thing, and we should defend it and even fight for it. And we have given peace a chance for 11 long years. We gave peace a chance through diplomacy, but Saddam Hussein has broken every agreement that came out of that diplomacy. We gave peace a chance through weapons inspections, but Saddam Hussein orchestrated an elaborate shell game to thwart that effort. We gave peace a chance through sanctions, but Saddam Hussein used those sanctions as an excuse to starve his own people. We gave peace a chance by establishing no-fly zones to prevent Saddam Hussein from killing more of his own citizens, but he shoots at our planes every day. We gave peace a chance by allowing him to sell some oil to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, but instead he used the revenue to build more weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, we have given peace a chance for more than a decade, and it has not worked. Even now our President is actively working to achieve a diplomatic solution by getting the United Nations to pass a resolution with teeth; and while the United Nations has an important role to play in this, no American President and no American Congress can shirk our responsibility to protect the American people. If the U.N. will not act, we must. If we go down to the other end of the national Mall, we will see on the Korean War Memorial the words ``Freedom is not free.'' Peace is not free either. What some of those who are protesting the President's request for military authority do not understand is that our freedoms were not won with poster paint. Antiwar protestors do not win our freedoms or our peace. The freedom to live in peace was won by men and women who gave their lives on the battlefields of history. As the world's only remaining superpower, we now even have an even greater responsibility to stand up to prevent mass murder before it happens. No world organization can override the President's duty and our duty to protect the American people. If Mohammed Atta had had a nuclear weapon, he would have used that weapon in New York and not an airplane. By all accounts Saddam Hussein is perhaps a year away from having nuclear weapons. He already has chemical and biological weapons capable of killing millions. When police detectives investigate a crime, they look for three things: means, motive, and opportunity. Clearly Saddam Hussein has the means, he has the weapons, and he has the motive. He hates America, he hates the Kurds, he hates Kuwaitis, he hates Iran, he hates Israel, he hates anyone who gets in his way. And we know that when he hates people, he kills them, sometimes by the thousand. He has shown the propensity to use his weapons and so he has the means and the motive. But does he have the opportunity? Saddam Hussein could easily pass a suitcase with a nuclear weapon off to an al Qaeda terrorist with a one- way ticket to New York. No fingerprints, no evidence, and several million dead Americans. Mr. Speaker, this is a very real danger. Before September 11 we might have thought this could never happen. Today we are too wise to doubt it, and it is a danger that grows every day. Every day Saddam Hussein grows stronger. Every day Saddam Hussein builds more chemical and biological weapons. Every day Saddam Hussein comes a little closer to achieving nuclear weapons capability. Every day that passes, America grows more vulnerable to a Saddam-sponsored terrorist attack. In this case inaction is more costly than action. The price of delay is a greater risk. The price of inaction could be catastrophic, even worse than September 11. We must disarm Saddam Hussein. Mr. Speaker, we are not advocating war. We are calling for peace, but peace might only be possible if we are willing to fight for it, and the President needs that authority to do that. I urge support for the resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a resolution that, without a doubt, weighs heavy on everyone's heart. To cast a vote on whether or not to authorize our President to use military force against an enemy is one of the most important responsibilities we have as Members of Congress. This is not an easy decision. It is a very complex state of affairs that will have foreign policy and national security implications for many years--beyond the service of many Members here today. So, we must not simply think about today, but we must also think about what the future holds. With this said, we must look at the big picture. It is a complex picture, but there are several things we do know for sure. (1) For many years, Saddam Hussein has brutally oppressed his people. He has committed mass murder, mass starvation, and gross violations of human rights. (2) Saddam Hussein has developed chemical and biological weapons with the capability to attack neighboring countries, like Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia--our allies. (3) Saddam has already used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and his enemies--we know he is not afraid to use them. (4) Saddam has vowed to use these weapons against anyone or any country that stands in his way, including the U.S., our allies, and even the Shia population in his own country. (5) Saddam is seeking nuclear weapons and is not far from obtaining this capability, and (6) For over a decade, Saddam has routinely disregarded the will of the U.N. and obstructed its weapons inspectors. I could go on, but the point is clear. Saddam is a tyrant and a madman that poses a direct threat to the United States, our allies, and his own people. His reign of terror must end. That is why we are here today. And that is why we must pass this resolution and show the international community and Iraq that the United States speaks with a single voice. We should show Saddam and his regime that his days are numbered.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last night the President gave a well-thought- out speech about Saddam Hussein and the dangerous regime he has built in Iraq. I do not think there is any doubt that Iraq poses a danger to the world, to the United States, to the region, to its own citizens. But what occurs to me is that in the past year there have been some on the other side of the aisle who have repeatedly asked why the President was not able to prevent September 11; why did the FBI and the CIA not focus more on the threats of hijackings; why did the FBI and CIA not coordinate better; could September 11 not have been prevented? Well, now we have another threat. Saddam Hussein hates us enough to kill. He has weapons of mass destruction. He has shown a willingness to use those weapons. He thwarts U.N. inspections while he seeks to develop nuclear weapons. We have a known threat and the opportunity to do something about it. Mr. Speaker, those who have been critical of our inability to prevent September 11 have a special opportunity to see to it that we prevent the next threat. The next threat is Iraq.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to the Search and Rescue Teams of the American Canine Association, ACA, who, for 8 weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, tirelessly and selflessly served at Ground Zero in New York City. Following the devastating attacks on our country and our very way of life, handlers Robert Yarnall, Jr., Susan Yarnall, Heather Nothstein, Michael Glass, Avi Thol, Travis Hayden, Sean Hayden, and Amy Dinardi, along with canines Gus, Nela, Nala, Samson, and Duchess, came to the aid of a grieving nation and endured tremendous personal difficulty to assist in finding survivors of the Twin Towers. In the year since September 11, we have come to a new appreciation of the heroes who live among us, those who volunteer their time, ability, and talent, without thought of recognition. The actions of these handlers and canines represent the true values of America—generosity, compassion, and service to community—that have made us great. I am proud to have had these extraordinary people and canines represent Chester County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The ACA deserves our thanks and our commendation for a job well done.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 543 and want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his leadership on this issue. Throughout the history of civilization, marriage has been a fundamental building block of society. If it were not for strong families, I think it is safe to say our country would not be the great country that it is today. But this government for far too long has been actually punishing families for staying together and punishing couples for getting married in the first place. Now, the Welfare Reform Law of 1996 went a long way to reversing this. Unfortunately, some in this Congress want to roll back those reforms, and the authorization bill still has not passed the other body. But the Tax Code itself penalizes couples for getting married. That is absolutely wrong. We had fixed it last year, but it was only a temporary fix. This year, we in the House have passed a bill to make that fix permanent, as it should be. Unfortunately, the other body has not seen fit to bring it up for a vote so that it cannot go to the President and become law. Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. I hope on behalf of every American couple that we can make repeal of the marriage penalty permanent this year. I thank, again, the gentleman for his leadership on the issue.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, David Welch, recently published an op ed in an Egyptian newspaper encouraging newspaper editors to be more careful about vetting articles before publishing them. There has been an upsurge of hate speech and commentary in that region suggesting that al-Qaeda was not responsible for the attack on 9/11. Ambassador Welch rightly pointed out that there is overwhelming and conclusive proof that al-Qaeda planned and executed the attack, including al-Qaeda's own admission. Newspapers have a responsibility to report the truth, and not to repeat lies and ridiculous rumors. Now our Ambassador has a bunch of Egyptian columnists, writers, and cartoonists angry with him. They issued a statement that he should go back to his country, and accused him of only seeing the region through Israeli eyes. Egypt is a friend and ally of the United States, but I think it would be appropriate for that country's journalists to treat Ambassador Welch with more respect and to report the truth, just as Ambassador Welch has suggested.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today represents the latest steps in Congress' twenty year commitment to Americans with rare ``orphan'' diseases. Since its passage in 1983, the Orphan Drug Act has stimulated the development of 231 new marketed orphan products, with several hundred more in the pipeline for which we all have great hopes. Yet, there are still more than 5,000 rare diseases with no specialized treatment at all. For this reason, H.R. 4013 and H.R. 4014 represent major advances in stimulating new therapies for those with rare diseases, as well as improved care. It is important to note, however, that even those 231 marketed orphan drugs, biologics, foods and devices are not always readily available to patients because of geographical and insurance barriers. One of the unfinished pieces of business facing this Congress is to make sure that Medicare is not contributing to this problem. Three years ago, when Congress created the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, known as HOPPS, Congress placed all orphan products into a pass-through category where they would be paid at a higher rate. Even still, many hospitals have lost money when they stocked orphan drugs to treat patients with rare diseases. Now we are faced with a situation where CMS has proposed a regulation for the 2003 HOPPS program that leaves most orphan drugs, biologicals and blood plasma therapies and their recombinant analogs such as clotting factors for individuals with Hemophilia without adequate reimbursement. Many hospitals will refuse to stock these drugs because of the large loss they will incur for treating a small number of patients. Without appropriate reimbursement, patients may be turned away from hospital emergency rooms or directed to alternative facilities if the location does not stock their product. The consequences of inadequate or non-existent access would be devastating, particularly in rural areas where the nearest hospital to stock a particular orphan drug may be a hundred or more miles away. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that the House of Representatives act this year to ensure that orphan drugs are properly reimbursed.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank and commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and the other sponsors for developing and moving this important legislation. In the last couple of decades, gambling has exploded across this country, both legal and illegal forms of gambling. While many of us are concerned about legal gambling and its impact on society, this bill is about illegal gambling. The Internet has made it possible to gamble away your money to offshore criminals right from your bedroom. Millions of Americans send these crooks their money; and up until now, the States have been powerless to do anything about it. With this bill, we solve the problem. It may be impossible to keep illegal gambling sites off the World Wide Web, but it is entirely possible to prevent American credit cards companies from completing these transactions that these crooks need to make their money, and that is what this bill does. It does nothing to roll back legal gambling in this country. This is entirely about activities that are already against the law and need to be stopped. Some Americans do not seem to have discretion not to do this; this will help keep the money out of the hands of illegal people running these gambling sites, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, tyrants speak only one language, and that is the language of raw power. Neville Chamberlain learned that the hard way when he came back from his meeting with Hitler and proclaimed peace. We cannot negotiate, we cannot reason, we cannot expect them to keep their word. Saddam Hussein has already broken every promise he has made. He broke his promise to allow inspections by the United Nations. He broke his promise to return hundreds of Kuwaiti civilian prisoners. He broke his promise not to use oil revenue to buy weapons, and just about every day he breaks his promise not to shoot our planes in the no-fly zones. Saddam Hussein is a proven liar, but somebody who orders chemical weapons used on his own people is not about to be bothered by a few lies. Some on the other side of the aisle, some nations in Europe are suggesting that we take him at his word. Somehow we are supposed to believe that this time he is telling the truth. If the U.N. and the civilized nations of the world have learned anything in the past few years, it should be that we cannot believe Saddam Hussein. If the U.N. wants to have any credibility at all, it should enforce its resolutions that Saddam Hussein has consistently violated and authorize decisive action before it is too late.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the President of Kyrgyzstan, Askar Akayev, and the First Lady, visited the United States. I rise to welcome them and thank them for their friendship. Kyrgyzstan is centrally located along the Great Silk Road, an ancient economic and cultural trade route that connected Europe to Asia. Kyrgyzstan has absorbed traditions from the East and the West, making its history rich and its people diverse. Today, the Great Silk Road is being renewed and Kyrgyzstan, once again, is at the center. Kyrgyzstan has made notable progress since its independence, but it still faces many challenges. Over the past decade, Kyrgyzstan has moved to adopt democratic reforms and a market economy. However, the potential that Kyrgyzstan holds to be an example to the region has not yet been fully realized. The U.S. must work closely with President Akayev to encourage additional reforms. Still, the Kyrgyz people are hungry for democracy and thirsty for economic prosperity. The future of the Kyrgyzstan rests in the hands of its young people. And it is a bright future. With this in mind, it is encouraging to see the hard work of the First Lady of Kyrgyzstan on behalf of the children in her country. The U.S. must continue to support these efforts. Kyrgyzstan has also been a strong supporter of the United States' war on terrorism. President Akayev has cooperated in allowing the use of an airbase in Bishkek and the government has helped with providing information on terrorist cells in the region. A prosperous Kyrgyzstan is important for regional security and stability. Therefore, we must work together to continue building relations between Kyrgyzstan and the U.S.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, some proponents of the current bankruptcy reform bill have claimed they want to stop violence. Well, we already know that fines and judgments for violent acts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so we have been arguing that the amendment added in conference committee is really out to stop peaceful, nonviolent protestors at abortion clinics. Well, last week the Senator who wrote the amendment said on MNPR, and I quote, ``They'd pay their fine and go back and stand in front of the clinic again. And they'd pay their fine and go back and stand in front of the clinic again; and they'd pay their fine and go back and stand again. They were taking the law into their own hands; in a peaceful way, but a very serious way, that led us to write the law.'' Well, there we have it, right from the horse's mouth. Peaceful, pro- life protestors are the target of that amendment. Madam Speaker, the current bill discriminates against pro-life Americans for no other reason than for what they believe. That is not right, not in America; and as much as I want to vote for bankruptcy reform, I cannot support the bill with this harmful language restricting first amendment rights of pro-lifers.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we have a crisis on our hands. Last year, there were more than $1.2 billion in medical malpractice suit payouts. That's a thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in the Keystone State. That's a huge drain on our economy. Worse than that, it's hurting patients. In my Congressional district, one hospital recently closed its trauma center and another canceled plans to build a center city clinic to serve the poor. A third hospital is about to close its maternity ward and fourth hospital nearby is on the verge of cutting back on emergency room services. Why? Because they can't find medical malpractice insurance. Insurance companies literally can't charge enough for their policies to stay in business, so they're leaving the Commonwealth. And that means doctors and hospitals can't get insurance. Doctors are leaving the profession or leaving the state. One doctor in my district says there were thirty companies offering malpractice policies when he started his practice 30 years ago. Now there is only one, and he's not sure they'll give him a policy. This is a crisis, Mr. Speaker. And Pennsylvania is not the only state in the Union that's in trouble. It's time for Congress to act. And we need to act now. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in America we believe in rights. We believe in the right of free speech. We believe in the right to choose our religion, right to peaceably assemble, other rights that are enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and every American's right to act according to the dictates of his conscience. Historically, this right to conscience has applied to individuals and to private organizations as well. In 1996, Congress enacted a law to protect the right of a health care entity to decline to participate in abortion and if they had a conscience against killing unborn children, to decline to participate in this. However, some have read the 1996 law very narrowly to say that it protects only residents and residency programs and only in a training context, and we have had court decisions saying that this health care entity language does not include the full range of participants in providing health care, such as hospitals and health plans and professionals of the facilities. So this bill, ANDA, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, would clarify existing law, strengthen existing law by providing that health care entities should not be forced by the government to pay for abortions or be penalized or discriminated against by government agencies for choosing not to provide or to perform abortions which 86 percent of our hospitals presently choose. It is needed to respond to this national effort that was referred to earlier on the floor by certain groups to force all health care providers to participate in abortions; and we have cited examples in New Jersey, in Alaska, others in Connecticut, in New Hampshire, various places. So the opponents raise issues like gag rule. Protection from being forced to do abortion referral is part of the 1996 law now. This bill does not create it. Exemption from informed consent or counseling requirements is not found in the 1996 law or in this bill. There is no gag rule here. The bill's protections apply to those who do not want to perform or to make arrangements for or to subsidize abortions against their will. Mr. Speaker, this is not a radical law. This is reasonable. Pro- choicers and pro-lifers have sponsored this bill that we have before us today. We should not force Catholic hospitals to refer for abortion or provide for abortion or other hospitals who have a conscience against it. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the other side says this is about choice and, yet, when health care professionals, hospitals across the United States make a choice not to perform abortions, like 86 percent of them do today, abortion proponents have teamed up to force them to perform abortions anyway, regardless of religious objections, regardless of moral objections, regardless of conscientious objections. We have a conscience clause law passed in 1996 that talks about health care entities, but because of court opinions like the one by the Supreme Court in Alaska, we have to clarify that these entities do include hospitals. Now, look at what the other side has said. They want to increase access to abortion services by requiring hospitals; it does not say suggest, it does not say urge, it does not say pressure, it says require every hospital in the State of Maryland to perform abortions. That means every Catholic hospital, every Lutheran hospital, every government hospital. That is what they want. In New Jersey, the pro-abortion lobby sued Our Lady of Lourdes Health Care Services, that is a Catholic agency, and tried to force them to provide abortion. We have heard about Alaska where the pro-abortion lobby went after the Valley Hospital, from whom we heard testimony on the committee, who did not want to provide abortions in the small town of Palmer, and they actually succeeded in the court case that went up to the Supreme Court that ruled that they had to perform abortions. What happened to the right to choose? What happened to the right of conscience? I guess the right of choice only applies if you agree with the pro-abortion lobby's agenda. Mr. Speaker, no one should be forced to have an abortion; no one should be forced to perform an abortion. The other side is talking here on the floor about a vast right-wing conspiracy. Well, if there is a conspiracy in America, maybe it is the vast left-wing conspiracy to shove abortion down everyone's throat. Support the rule, support the bill.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague on the other side said existing laws protects only religiously affiliated health care providers from forced involvement in abortion and that this bill expands that. That is absolutely false. H.R. 4691 does not expand the law at all on this point. Existing law protects secular as well as religious providers. H.R. 4691 clarifies the definition of health care entity in this law so it clearly covers nurses as well as physicians, hospitals, as well as training programs in hospitals. This charge of expanding the law beyond religious to secular entities I think is a red herring. About title X, compromising the ability of title X clients to obtain information critical to their health, I think that is false. Nothing in H.R. 4691 limits Federal or State agency's abilities to require the provision of accurate information about abortion or abortion providers. Under H.R. 4691, government may not penalize a private health care entity for declining to provide or make arrangements for abortions. States should not be able to force people or hospitals to be involved in an abortion, especially when they try to base the right to coerce on the fact that medical institutions receive Federal funding. Conscience protection is a civil right. The Federal Government has the right and the duty to protect conscience by making sure that any entity that receives Federal funding does not discriminate against any person or organization just because they do not want to be involved in an abortion. I might say that 46 States in our country presently have conscience protection laws. I might quote from the American Medical Association. They say: ``Neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles.''

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, on September 27, 1942, Midshipman Edwin Joseph O'Hara saw two enemy surface raiders suddenly appear out of the morning mist to attack the vessel he was on. Heavy guns of one raider pounded his ship, and machine guns fired from the other, spraying the decks for one-half hour at close quarters. The heroic gun crew of O'Hara's ship exchanged shot for shot with the enemy, placing 35 shells into the waterline of one of the raiders, until its crew was forced to abandon their sinking ship. All of the gun crew were killed or wounded when an enemy shell exploded the magazine of their gun. At the explosion, Midshipman O'Hara ran aft and single-handedly served and fired the damaged gun with five live shells remaining in the ready box, scoring direct hits near the waterline of the second raider. O'Hara was mortally wounded in this action. With boilers blown up, engines destroyed, masts shot away, and ablaze from stem to stern, the ship finally went under, carrying O'Hara and several of his shipmates with her. O'Hara was awarded the Merchant Marine Distinguished Service Medal for his bravery, bravery we should never forget.