Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on this day, September 26, 1780, 220 years ago, the treason attempt of American General Benedict Arnold was discovered. General Washington reported to Congress, ``Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered. General Arnold, who commanded at West Point, was about to deliver up that important post into the hands of the enemy. Such an event must have given the American cause a deadly wound if not a fatal stab. Happily, the treason has been timely discovered to prevent the fatal misfortune. The providential train of circumstances which led to it affords the most convincing proof that the liberties of America are the object of Divine protection.'' As a result, Congress called for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving, declaring in the resolution, ``It hath pleased Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, to rescue the person of our Commander- in-Chief and the army from imminent dangers at the moment when treason was ripened for execution. It is therefore recommended to the several States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.'' On this day, 220 years ago, Congress called on the people of the United States to openly thank God for protecting America, a lesson we should still remember today.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Allen Greenspan appeared before one of our committees here on Capitol Hill, and he made it clear that increased spending was the worst option for using the budget surplus we have today. He said very clearly that the first thing we should do is pay down the public debt. He said, and I quote, ``If that proves politically infeasible, I would opt for cutting taxes.'' Mr. Speaker, this Nation has a public debt of over $3 trillion. How much is $1 trillion? If we borrowed $1 million a day 7 days a week every year and we began on the day Jesus Christ was born and went until now, we would not yet have $1 trillion. We have the opportunity right now to pay off the public debt, and that is what our Republican Congress wants to do. But the big spenders say we are not spending enough. The President wants $40 billion more than we have appropriated, even though every dollar we do not pay off as debt our children will have to pay interest on. Is there any end to the Clinton-Gore administration's thirst for big government spending?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the American people have made it clear that education is their number one priority this election season. Too many of our children are stuck in schools that do not prepare them to compete in the world, and I am sorry to say that the Clinton- Gore administration simply has not measured up in this area. Their rhetoric is great, it is even flowery; but they have not even met the goals they set for themselves. In 1994, Clinton and Gore announced with great fanfare their goals for the year 2000, but they have fallen far short of the mark. They said the U.S. would be first in math and science by the year 2000. Instead, we have fallen to 17th in math and 21st in science. They said all our schools would be safe and drug free by the year 2000. Instead, school violence is worse than it has ever been. Drug use is still common. Their goal for 2000 was that all adults would be literate by now. Instead, 44 million adults still do not have basic reading skills. Promises versus results. People care a lot more about results than promises.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it was not long ago we were all scratching our heads wondering how anyone could ask what the meaning of ``is'' is. Words have plain meanings, or at least they used to. And while many of us laughed about the President's confusion, this kind of semantic game has become a matter of life and death for many newborns because many in the abortion industry are trying to convince us that even after a child is born, even if he or she is born healthy, the child is not really a person. They claim the baby has no rights or legal protections, or even the right to live. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District has gone so far as to rule in favor of this outrageous position. This is yet another example of a group of radical judges turning kooky ideas into law through a fiat that the Constitution does not entitle them to. In the case of Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the court ruled that it was ``nonsensical for a State legislature to conclude that an infant's location in or outside the mother's womb has any relevance in deciding if the child may be killed. The Court decided that all that matters is whether or not the mother intended to have an abortion, even if it was a partial-birth abortion, which most Americans think is murder.'' In other words, if a child is born alive because a doctor has induced labor as part of an abortion procedure, regardless of how late in the pregnancy, the child still may be killed. It does not matter how healthy the baby is or how loudly it cries. Once the mother decides to abort her child, it makes no difference how the baby exits the womb, we may still kill the child with impunity. Mr. Speaker, how on Earth can we claim to be a civilized nation when we are killing living, breathing children and calling it legal? I would like to read a portion of the testimony Jill Stanek gave back in July during the hearings on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Jill is a nurse that worked in a hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Her hospital, which, I am embarrassed to say, is called Christ Hospital, performs abortions for women even in their second and third trimester. Jill says that babies at that hospital sometimes survive the abortion procedure. These babies want to live, but the hospital lets them die anyway. Here is a little bit of her story. ``In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she receives no medical assessments or care but is only given what my hospital calls `comfort care.' `Comfort care' is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until he or she dies, although even this minimal compassion is not always provided. It is not required that these babies be held during their short lives. ``One night, a nursing coworker was taking an aborted Down's syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed a half pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I could not tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken. ``Other co-workers have told me many upsetting stories about live aborted babies whom they have cared for.'' And there is much more. Jill's story should horrify every American. We must decide are we a civilized nation or will barbaric practices like this continue. I urge my colleagues to support the Born Alive Victims Protection Act. Let the American people know that we still know what decency means.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on August 10, 1999, there was an article in the Los Angeles Times. Al Gore was in Hollywood raising money for his campaign. The Los Angeles Times reported that he told these big Hollywood contributors in very clear terms that a probe into Hollywood violence was the President's idea, not his. These Hollywood big wigs make a lot of money from violent movies and did not like the idea of Washington politicians meddling with their profits. Well, Mr. Speaker, that investigation that Al Gore once disavowed is complete and it turns out that these Hollywood types have been marketing violent movies and video games to 12-year-olds. Even President Clinton is mad. But Al Gore has accepted over $13 million in donations from this special interest industry. Now, Al Gore wants us to believe that he is going to do something about violent movies, video games and music lyrics. Would it seem too cynical if I said, quite simply, I do not believe it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Coburn motion to instruct conferees. Frankly, I do not know how any Member could disagree with this motion that simply prohibits the distribution of the morning-after pill at schools. This is a pill that can cause an early abortion. So our kids can go to school, be given an abortion pill without their parents' consent. Well, unbeknownst to most parents, this is happening in at least 180 schools across America. Why is this so surprising to parents? Because parents are required to sign a note or permission slip for everything. If their daughter needs an aspirin, the parent writes a note; if she needs an allergy shot, another note; cold medicine, a note from home; insulin, parental permission; penicillin, more permission; Ritalin even more permission. Then logically our daughters should not be given something as potentially harmful as the morning-after pill at school. This is a pill that can have side effects such as risks of developing blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, cardiovascular disease. Obviously, one should not just be able to go to a school nurse to get it. The Coburn motion is a logical protection for our daughters and for the right, as parents, to help make important health decisions for them. Some will argue that our daughters need the morning-after pill in schools if they have been raped or abused. If something as tragic as rape or abuse has violated a young girl, schools are required by law to report this to the authorities. Then proper care can be given to them in a hospital, not at their school. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members be permitted to refer to a retiring Member of the other body in tributes during morning hour debate tomorrow.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Helsinki Commission, and also as the Cochair of the Religious Prisoners Congressional Task Force, I rise today to speak on behalf of a young man who has had his human rights violated, a young man with a wife and five young children, a man who, because of the peaceful practice of his religious beliefs, is in prison in Turkmenistan. In December of 1998, security officials arrested and imprisoned Mr. Shageldy Atakov, pursued trumped-up charges against him, and on March 19, 1999, Mr. Atakov was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Why? Simply because he decided to change his religion from Muslim to Christian. Despite the fact that the government of Turkmenistan is a signatory to the Helsinki Accords and other international agreements, officials have blatantly violated Mr. Atakov's and other individuals' rights to freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the freedom of assembly. Before KNB officials, that is the new name for the KGB, arrested Mr. Atakov, they, along with local religious community leaders, told him if he converted back to his previous religion, he would receive a car, a house and a good job, a great offer in a country like Turkmenistan where people make approximately $40 per month. However, these community leaders and security officials made it clear that if Mr. Atakov refused this offer, they would ``find'' charges against him and ensure that he was imprisoned. Over a 2-month period, various officials visited Mr. Atakov to repeat this offer and threats. In one of the visits, secret police officials said he would be imprisoned and ``we will quickly force you into silence.'' The KNB secret police have tried to silence Mr. Atakov in prison. Reports show that in July of 1999 and March of 2000 Mr. Atakov was forced into the special punishment cell in which he was severely beaten by guards, denied water, and fed only every other day. His family saw him at the end of the 10 days in 1999, and they reported that he was barely alive. In July of 1999, it was reported that President Niyazov gave Mr. Atakov presidential amnesty, as allowed under Section 228 of the criminal code; but for some strange reason, security officials did not release him. Instead, they put him in the punishment cell described above. In fact, because of the pressure from the prosecutor, who said the previous sentence was too lenient, a new trial was held in August of 1999; and Mr. Atakov was sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined $12,000. That is an amount equivalent to about 25 years of salary for the average Turk citizen. Since February of this year, KNB officials forced his family into internal exile, the principal has kicked his children out of school, his wife has been told she will remain in exile until she renounces her faith, Mr. Atakov's brother was arrested and tortured in April of 1999, and other family members have lost their jobs and suffered as well. In December of 1999, during a raid on a Russian family living in Turkmenistan, KNB officials told them, ``First we will deport all of you foreign missionaries, then we'll strangle the remaining Christians in the country.'' All of this government attention to one man and his family simply because of religious beliefs. This injustice is an outrage. The tactics of the KNB show that the KGB forces and methods of operations did not disappear with the demise of the Soviet Union, but are still alive and well. The arrest and subsequent imprisonment of Mr. Atakov are not isolated events, but are a result of the KNB secret police policy in Turkmenistan. In 1997, the legislature adopted severe restrictions on religion, imposing compulsory re-registration of all religious communities. According to the legislation, a religious community must have at least 500 members before it can obtain registration. Without this legal status, all religious groups are considered illegal and their activities therefore are punishable under the law. Since June of 1997, the secret police have detained, interrogated and physically assaulted many religious believers. In addition, these officials have raided churches, interrupted worship services, searched homes and confiscated over 6,700 pieces of literature. In each instance, the KNB warned citizens that the Christian faith in particular is forbidden in Turkmenistan. Religious believers throughout Turkmenistan suffer if they practice their religion but do not belong to either of the two ``registered'' religions. One is the Islamic faith, the other is the Russian Orthodox. Mr. Speaker, I recently received reports that Mr. Atakov's health has deteriorated rapidly and he may be at the point of death. I urge the government of Turkmenistan to allow an international organization, such as the Red Cross, to visit Mr. Atakov, assess his health, and provide any medical assistance he might need. Even, I might say, the old ruthless Soviet regime allowed prisoners medical health. I urge the government of Turkmenistan to live up to its commitments under the Helsinki Accords and other international agreements to uphold and to protect freedom of speech, assembly and belief. Further, I urge the government of Turkmenistan to release Mr. Atakov under their own president's amnesty granted to him last year. Finally, I urge the government to stop harassing and persecuting people of faith and recognize their important and rich contribution to their nation.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems Act. This bill represents a community-driven effort to preserve the White Clay Creek watershed, which is located in southeastern Pennsylvania and northwestern Delaware. The watershed is one of only a few relatively unspoiled river systems remaining in the highly developed corridor between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the Wilmington-Newark Delaware corridor. It is a valuable natural, ecological, and historic resource, as well as an important water resource for millions of families in the surrounding regions. My personal desire to see this watershed preserved goes back almost 30 years. In fact, my son and I used to fish for trout there when he was a boy. The White Clay Creek, however, is being threatened by rapid development in the region. To preserve the creek, to protect its water quality and conserve the wildlife in the watershed, it is important that we designate the creek as a Wild and Scenic River. This bill is the culmination of more than 8 years of hard work by the local community. I have worked closely with farmers, landowners, concerned citizens, State and local officials, and the National Park Service to draft the amended language contained in this bill. It has been encouraging to me to see all interested parties work together toward the common goal of preserving this watershed. This effort provides us with an excellent model of how to succeed in protecting our environment and natural resources. It has been a grassroots, a bi-state, and bipartisan effort from the beginning. The Wild and Scenic designation will bring the resources that the Federal Government has to offer without ceding local control. Townships and boroughs, which historically have controlled development, will retain the power they have always had. This designation will simply give us another tool to make sure that this important natural resource is not lost to future generations. The White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act has the overwhelming support of everyone involved in the process. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) from the Committee on Resources and the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for their support of this legislation and their leadership in bringing this bill to the House floor. I urge Members to support preserving the environment and to vote yes on this bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the refugees and others who suffer as a result of the dispute over Kashmir between India and Pakistan. We heard earlier in joint session about the suffering on the Indian side. Well, earlier this year I visited a camp on the Pakistani side that was filled with Kashmiris who were wounded or who had relatives who were wounded or dead from fighting. Several had their limbs cut off by their Indian adversaries. These Kashmiris pleaded with me to urge the U.N. to get involved and somehow bring an end to the bloodshed and suffering of the Kashmiri people and relief to the refugees. They are called displaced persons, not refugees, so they are ineligible for relief. Some reports suggest that over a million people have become refugees since 1947 as a result of the conflict. Madam Speaker, I urge Secretary General Kofi Annan to appoint a special enjoy to help bring an end to this conflict to get the two sides to the negotiating table. I urge the governments of Pakistan and India to dialogue with each other, find a solution to this long, drawn out conflict. And why not allow the Kashmiris to hold a referendum for self- determination? India is the world's largest democracy. What is wrong with letting people in Kashmir vote on their future? In the meantime, forces should pull back from the line of conflict and relief should be provided to the suffering refugees of Kashmir.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we all remember the fund-raising scandal that the President and the Democrats got themselves into in 1996, foreign money and money laundering. But perhaps the worst part was the apparent influence of the People's Republic of China. We all remember that the Loral Corporation which leaked sensitive missile data to China was a major Democratic contributor that year. In fact, Bernard Schwartz, the president and CEO of that company, the largest single contributor to the DNC, was recommended in 1998 as the focus of an independent counsel investigation to find out if there was a connection between donations and technology transfers. Well, one would think they would learn their lesson. But we found out last week that Mr. Schwartz is again giving huge amounts of money to the Democrats. FEC reports show that he has given an average of $40,000 a month to Democrats since January of 1999, most of it in unrestricted soft-money donations. I call on the Democrats to return these donations until we determine once and for all what his role was in leaking sensitive missile data to the Chinese. This is not just a matter of ethical conduct. It is a matter of national security.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on this day in history, September 12, 1782, 218 years ago, Congress made a significant decision reported in the records of Congress. The American Revolution had just concluded, and America was no longer bound by the British law making it illegal to print a Bible in the English language. A plan was therefore presented for Congress to approve the printing of a Bible that would be ``a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.'' Congress approved the plan and on this day in 1782 our Founding Fathers issued the endorsement printed in the front of the ``Bible of the Revolution,'' now considered one of the rarest books in the world, and I saw one recently. That endorsement declares: ``The United States in Congress assembled recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.'' One historian observed that ``this Congress of the States assumed all the rights and performed all the duties of a Bible Society long before such an institution existed.'' This act by Congress on this day in 1782 shows that our Founding Fathers believed that it was appropriate for Congress to encourage religion and even the use of a Bible, a lesson many today would like us to forget.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4892. The other side acted as if voting on bills on suspension is unusual. This week the notice says we are voting on 27 bills on suspension. We just finished voting on 5 of them. After booing the Boy Scouts at their national convention, after the Clinton-Gore administration contemplated barring them from national park programs, now the Democrats have introduced legislation to revoke the Boy Scouts charter. In 1916, the U.S. Congress gave the Boy Scouts of American a national charter because we believed in what they were doing. We believed in the values that the Scouts stood for: the Boy Scout oath is an oath every Member of this body would do well to be familiar with. Evidently, the Democrats no longer believe in the values embodied in this oath. Evidently, they believe the Boy Scouts are dangerous. The Democrats believe times have changed, that the old rules of right and wrong no longer apply. Evidently, the American people are wrong, but the Boy Scouts is not a hate organization. They are the premier youth organization of America, training young people in character, volunteerism and patriotism, self- reliance to believe in God and country. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat this outrageous bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, no organization has done more to train young men to believe in God and country than the Boy Scouts of America. No organization is more fundamentally decent and better for young men. But the Clinton-Gore administration apparently thinks they are dangerous. After Democratic delegates booed a Boy Scout color guard at their convention, the Justice Department launched an investigation to see whether they should bar the Boy Scouts from Department of Interior programs because of their traditional American values. They have since backed down. But just the fact that the Clinton-Gore administration even contemplated banning the Boy Scouts from national parks and programs because of their beliefs is an outrage. The Boy Scouts is not a hate organization. It is the premier youth organization in America providing training for character and volunteerism. The Clinton-Gore administration should stop pandering to the loony left.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, on this day, September 6, 1774, 226 years ago, the first Congress assembled in Philadelphia. According to the Records of Congress, Congress established two important precedents on that day. First, rules of governing its procedures; and, second, it decided to open its sessions with prayer. John Adams provided the details on that second decision, reporting that ``When Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it should be opened in prayer. It was opposed by one or two, because we were so divided in religious sentiment that we could not agree on the same act of worship. Mr. Samuel Adams rose and said, `He was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country, and therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian clergyman, might be desired to read prayers to the Congress tomorrow morning.' The motion was seconded and passed in the affirmative.'' Interestingly, although objections were raised against public prayers two centuries ago, Congress quickly learned that prayer was a unifying rather than a dividing force. Now, two centuries later, we still benefit from what they learned 226 years ago today.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today freedom of the press and media in the OSCE participating States is deteriorating and regressing, largely unnoticed by the peoples of the region. This is happening in Western and Central Europe in much the same way one cooks a frog. Place the frog in cold water and start the fire. As the water heats up, the frog is gradually cooked--having never known he was in danger. This type of political gradualism is a true threat to the peoples and States of Europe. Recent hearings held by the Helsinki Commission, on which I serve, have noted a number of high profile cases in Eastern Europe showcasing the situation. We have heard of the rise of influence and pressure from heavy-handed government authorities who feel the need to control the views and reports of independent journalists. Such actions have been especially evident in Bosnia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine. The recent arrest of Vladimir Gusinsky, head of Media Most and an outspoken critic of Russian President Putin, has raised our concern about Russia's approach to an agenda of free media. A key OSCE commitment allows for the development and protection of freedom of expression, permitting independent pluralistic media. Three years ago, the OSCE States were concerned enough about the problems in this area that they mandated the creation of the position of Representative on Freedom of the Media. The 25th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act marks an appropriate occasion to review the past relations between the OSCE governments and the media, and to review the current situation of free media in the region. Last year, 11 journalists were killed in the region, with a number of the deaths accompanied by suspicious circumstances. In addition to those killed while reporting the news, many others were arrested under suspicious circumstances and without due process. Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty reporter Andrei Babitsky's story is a frightening example of just how badly the situation for reporters has deteriorated in Russia. While covering and reporting on the war in Chechnya, Babitsky was arrested by Russian troops for ``participating in an armed formation,'' and yet later was traded to Chechen rebels in an exchange, thus being placed in grave danger. Babitsky was later retrieved by Russian forces and subsequently charged with using false papers. While Babitsky was fortunate to have survived and received international exposure, most other journalists are not so lucky in Russia. In Vladimir Putin's first ``state of the union'' speech, he said that he supported a free Russian press, but was angered that media owners could influence the content. That is, while Putin openly declares support for a free media, he chills the media in his next utterance. Likewise, Gusinsky's arrest has heightened our concern as we see the tightening of the noose on the throat of a free press in Russia. Actions by governments in Southeastern Europe are also a cause for concern. Turkey and the Balkan States present serious impediments towards promoting and allowing free media. Serbia continually threatens, harasses, and fines all media that do not follow the official line. Milosevic has seen to the gradual demise of any independent Serbian media, not the least through fines totaling $2.1 million last year. Turkish authorities continue to block free media in key areas, with either the Kurdish issue or criticism of the military most likely to land journalists in jail. Mr. Speaker, I could continue. Such developments are rife throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is not enough for OSCE States to ardently promote the idea of free speech and media. Collective accountability must be used, along with public diplomacy, if the OSCE is to consist of States that rise to the standard envisioned at Helsinki 25 years ago regarding free speech and media.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, ever since Roe v. Wade, Americans have debated the question, When does life begin? Some of us believe it starts at conception, others at viability, and others, amazingly, not until birth. But once a baby has been born, everyone agrees life has begun, and this baby is a new human being with all his or her God-given rights. Well, what was once obvious seems to have been called into question lately. The Supreme Court shocked America recently by ruling that States may not ban partial birth abortions. Now we are hearing stories of children being born alive in abortion clinics and then left to die. H.R. 4292, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, codifies in law that, once a baby is born, it is legally alive. Unbelievably, the National Abortion Rights Action League and their allies call this a renewed assault on Roe. What they really mean to say is that, when a doctor botches an abortion and the child is born alive, the doctor should still have the right to kill it. How far we have fallen, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the American people are the greatest resource of this land. Every community, no matter how poor, has people in it that care deeply for their neighbors. Every community, no matter how high the crime rate, has neighbors who look out for each other. The American people are the greatest untapped resource of community renewal in this country. By allowing faith-based organizations to do what they do best, care for people and help them grow, we will see a revolution of prosperity, even in our most distressed neighborhoods. Statistics have shown conclusively that faith-based, community-based organizations are vastly more successful at turning lives and neighborhoods around than any government program. Teen Challenge, a program in Pennsylvania that has operated for over 40 years, it is a faith-based drug treatment program that keeps the individuals in their program for a year. They track their graduates for 7 years after they graduate. I have seen two studies, one 70 percent, one 86 percent success rate. The Government programs do not track their people that go through their programs, and many of them recycle. The genius of this legislation is that it replaces faceless bureaucracies with the power of neighborly compassion. Through tax incentives and the creation of 40 new renewal communities, this bill says to leaders in distressed communities, ``You go on and do what you do best. We know you'll do a better job than we can.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation is telling the American people that they hold the power of change, that they hold the key to the future. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the conference committee will insert the Individual Development Account legislation language in the bill, as the Senate version of the bill contains that language. As cochairman of the Renewal Alliance, along with my cochair in the Senate, Senator Santorum, we have been promoting this legislation for 3 years. I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), and the President and the Speaker for their commitment to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 4106, the Savings for Working Families Act, was included in the Senate's version of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act. H.R. 4106, which I introduced with Congressman Stenholm, creates the first nationwide Individual Development Account program. These matched savings accounts are restricted to three uses: (1) buying a first home, (2) receiving post-secondary education or training, or (3) starting a small business. Mr. Speaker, America is in a period of unprecedented growth. It is impossible for many to take advantage of this economic boom when one-fifth of American households do not have a bank account. H.R. 4106 will help American families attain the American dream. While I am a strong supporter of the bill before us today, I urge my colleagues to consider including IDAs when this legislation goes to conference. H.R. 4106 provides a tax credit to financial institutions and businesses that match the savings of the working poor through IDAs. IDAs are matched savings accounts restricted to three uses: (1) buying a first home, (2) receiving post-secondary education or training, or (3) starting a small business. All matched dollars are paid directly to the qualified financial institution and payments from the IDA are made directly to the asset provider. IDAs would be available to low-income citizens or legal residents of the U.S. Mr. Speaker, there is an old joke that says the scariest thing an American citizen can hear is the phrase: ``Hello, I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help you.'' And, although it's a joke, I think there is some real wisdom there. Many of us in this chamber can remember Lyndon Johnson's first 100 days, when he set about trying to solve every problem faced by the American people. He planned a War on Poverty, which was designed to eradicate poverty--forever. Well, almost 40 years later we still have poverty, and we have families who have been stuck in poverty for generations now. Why is that? Well, I would submit to my colleagues that government--as a rule--is unfit to solve the greatest problems of society. Can government create a work ethic? No. Can government make people moral? No. Can government force families to stay together or communities to prosper? No and no. That was the problem with the Great Society. It denied the fact that our society--and yes, it is a great one--is not only of the people, but also by the people.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, today we will pass legislation to prevent innocent children from being executed along with their guilty parents; or, as one of the interns in my office so aptly put it, this bill is to ensure that a convicted killer cannot decide to kill again, this time the innocent child in her womb. Now, opponents of this legislation have said that it is unnecessary. After all, when has a pregnant woman ever been executed, they ask? I agree with them that this bill should be completely unnecessary. Although a pregnant woman was once sentenced to death, according to the father of Planned Parenthood, Alan Guttmacher, the authorities had the good sense to postpone her execution until after she had given birth. In fact, the innocent child principle has been the law of the land for more than a century. It was under a liberal Democratic Congress in 1994 that we reaffirmed this common law principle. So why do we need to pass this bill? Well, it seems that there are those who think it is time to retreat from this long-standing policy. Some think, not many, but some very important people think that it is okay to execute pregnant women as long as they consent. But what about the innocent child in utero who has committed no crime? The baby has no choice in the matter, says one of our leaders. People on death row are there because they willfully have taken another life; and some, several lives. They are not given the death penalty for manslaughter or even third degree murder, only for the most heinous crimes. The innocent child is not guilty of the horrible crimes of its mother. So we must defend this common law principle, common sense, in the face of liberal activism to legalize the execution of pregnant women or their innocent children. Madam Speaker, we stand with the American people who believe that pregnant women should not be executed, plain and simple. Is this a new problem? Yes. But we are not the one who caused it. Just examine the comments of the Vice President if one wants to understand how this came about. I urge support for the Innocent Victim Protection Act.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. Should An Innocent Unborn Child Be Executed? Key Points on the Innocent Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888) July 20, 2000. The Innocent Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888), introduced by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) on July 19, 2000, prohibits state governments from carrying out a sentence of death on a woman who carries a child in utero. This bill does not reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes. Nor does this bill have anything to do with other bills that deal with DNA evidence or other issues pertaining to the actual guilt of a person who has been convicted of a capital crime. This bill simply recognizes (1) most states and the federal government do currently impose capital punishment for certain crimes, but (2) no child in utero can possibly be guilty of a crime, therefore (3) Congress should prevent the government from taking the life of an innocent child in utero by prohibiting, within all U.S. jurisdictions, any death sentence from being carried out while a woman convicted of a capital crime carries a child in utero. Title 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 3596, enacted in 1994, already prohibits federal executions of pregnant women, but most executions are carried out by states, and in any event it is just and appropriate to have a uniform law for all jurisdictions on this question. Under traditional common law (non-statutory, judge-made law), a death sentence should not be carried out on a woman who carries a child in utero. The purpose of this common law doctrine, as the Supreme Court noted in the 1891 case of Union Pacific Railway v. Botsford, was ``to guard against the taking of the life of an unborn child for the crime of the mother.'' [11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1000, 1002] However, common law offers weak and uncertain protection against the execution of an innocent child in utero. While the situation under discussion here may seldom arise in the U.S. in modern times, maintaining and reinforcing the innocent child principle is worthwhile even if it saves only one innocent life in a century. Currently, 38 states (and the federal government) employ the death penalty for certain offenses. As of January 1, 1999, 51 women were on state death rows, of whom 82% were age 45 or younger. Women do become pregnant in prison--even in maximum- security facilities. As Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Ca.) said on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 22, 2000, in a speech in favor of an unsuccessful amendment to require the federal Bureau of Prisons to fund abortions, ``We know that women become pregnant in prison, from rape or from having a relationship with one of the guards.'' In his 1937 book Into This Universe: The Story of Human Birth, Dr. Alan Guttmacher--the ``father of Planned Parenthood''--wrote: ``A judge has told me that in one of the States a pregnant woman received the ordinary stay of execution on account of pregnancy, and through the willing cooperation of a jailer became pregnant again shortly after her delivery, before the original execution order could be carried out. She was granted a second stay to allow her to give birth to the jailer's child.'' (page 46) In 1976, the U.S. became a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which 143 other nations have also joined. Article 6(5) states, ``Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.'' The U.S. entered a partial reservation to Article 6(5), which reads, ``The United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.'' [italics added for emphasis] Thus, within the reservation itself, the U.S. bound itself not to permit the execution of any woman who carries an unborn child. Congress has constitutional authority to explicitly apply this treaty obligation to the states. H.R. 4888's definition of ``child in utero'' (``a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb'') is taken verbatim from the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 2436), passed by the House on September 30, 1999, by a vote of 254-172. (1999 House roll call no. 465) Similar definitions and terminology are found in numerous state laws. Like those state laws, this bill has no effect on access to legal abortion, either for women on death row or anybody else. Vice President Gore, asked by NBC's Tim Russert whether he agreed with the current prohibition on federal executions of pregnant women, laughed and said, ``I'd want to think about it.'' (Meet the Press, July 16, 2000) On July 17, ``Mr. Gore said he favored allowing a pregnant woman to choose whether to delay her execution until she gave birth. `The principle of a woman's right to choose governs in that case,' he said.'' (The New York Times, July 18) Gore's position implicitly repudiates the innocent child principle embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Title 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 3596, both of which flatly prohibit the government from taking the child's life.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, Mrs. Clinton has decided that she wants New York to be her new home. Of course, if New York decides this fall that the feeling is not mutual, she may decide to move somewhere else. She certainly has no lack of friends in other places. Just this weekend she was in Annapolis, Maryland, raising money from the rich and famous. And we are pretty sure she still has some friends back home in Arkansas. But it seems that some of her very best friends are from more exotic places. Last year she returned from the country of Morocco with $52,000 in gifts from Moroccan leaders. One of the presents she received was a $20,000 purse. That is one heck of a purse. It has gold overlay, 64 diamonds, and 11 garnets. I suppose, to be fair, we should point out that her husband was held in such high regard by the Nicaraguans that he came home with a $650 humidor for his cigars to be put in. With friends like these, who needs the Senate? But it must be lonely at the top.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the widespread violence and killing of innocent people occurring daily in the Malukus, the Spice Islands and Ambon in Indonesia. The mass killings in Ambon are deeply disturbing. There are members within the current Indonesia government and former government and the military who do not care how many innocent lives are stamped out. These people simply care about their ultimate goal of controlling Indonesian society and keeping their hold on power. It is deeply disturbing and offensive, Mr. Speaker, that these individuals would allow this. They are in the same league as those who ordered the deaths of innocent people in the concentration camps of World War II. Horrifying reports and photos arrive each day in my office. I have photos of destroyed homes, businesses, churches, places of worship. I have photos of men, women, children, lying in streets with severed limbs, heads blown off, photos much too graphic to bring to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Indonesia at the end of May, met with various leaders, including President Wahid and leaders from both the Christian and Muslim communities. They long for peace to reign again. But it seems impossible because of numerous reports of behind-the-scenes maneuvers by Suharto, Habibie, their cronies, various military officers and others who want to destabilize the present government. These former government leaders and military leaders are really people with no hearts. Why do I say that? Because only uncivilized people could coldly and callously calculate to cause the deaths of whole societies simply to maintain their power. Mr. Speaker, the mass killings continue. Day after day, more and more people in these islands become refugees with no access to food, clothing, medicine or shelter. Reports suggest that the tension in the Malukus is not simply an economic issue; it is a religious issue as well. Members of the more extremist Islamic community, including the current leader of the People's Consultative Assembly, Dr. Amien Rais, openly have supported calls for ``jihad'' or an Islamic holy war against the Christians and other religious minorities in Indonesia. The influx of Laskar Jihad fighters into Maluku has only happened through complexity of members of the military who have allowed a mass influx of men and arms into the Ambonese communities. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a couple of excerpts from letters and reports that we have received: ``Before the military arrived, we were fine. There was no fighting. They came and the attacks came with them. When we were boarding the evacuation ship, the soldiers had stolen most of our things, including our rings, necklaces, et cetera, and sold them in front of us for almost nothing. A chain saw that costs several hundred dollars was sold for $10. If we carried two bags of clothes to bring, they threw one out. We took only part of what we had fled with. The clothes I have on are the only ones I now own. This shirt I wore during the attacks. I had no long pants.'' ``For the 3 days of the fighting, soldiers were shooting at us, many of them died. Two of our kids died. One was handicapped, and the soldiers hung him and burned him alive. These two had not died in the fighting; it was after when the soldiers rounded us up. The soldiers murdered these two.'' ``The attacks continued until the evening the 3rd of July in the village. The next day, the attack continued. When it was known that the mobs planned to burn down the university, the villagers again asked the military's help to stop the mobs. Again, the request was ignored with the excuse that there are villagers, civil security personnel, and the students regiment who could guard the university campus.'' Here is an AP article from July 17: ``The leaders of an armed Muslim militia have vowed to rid the islands of Christians. Most members come from Indonesia's central island of Java, and its leaders are Suharto supporters. In the television footage, many of the Muslim militants can be clearly heard speaking Javanese as they plan their attack on Christian parts of Ambon. ``In television footage shot over the weekend . . . Indonesian soldiers are seen fighting alongside hundreds of Muslim militants in Ambon. Many of the extremists were filmed carrying military-issue assault rifles.'' Mr. Speaker, out of desperation, many community leaders from Ambon have urged the international community to help stop these continued killings by bringing in U.N. observers and peacekeepers and boycotting Indonesian businesses involved in supporting the destruction of the Malukus. Mr. Speaker, we should not stand idly by and watch while the death count continues to rise. Our Nation should not do business with businesses supporting this bloodshed. We are starting our military assistance again. We should not lend our military expertise to military officers who approve of the killing of innocent women and children. We have laws that impose sanctions on Nations that allow persecution of ethnic and religious groups. I call on Members to join me in sending a letter to President Wahid and President Clinton. I call on the Indonesian and U.S. Governments to act immediately to stop the killings and bring to justice the parties responsible for this reign of terror.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, candidate Hillary Clinton is mired in another controversy. She has been accused of using an obscene ethnic slur when her husband lost a race for Congress in the 1970s. More than one person says they heard it, and now it is out in the open. It has been said that the character of a person can sometimes best be seen in how they carry themselves when they lose. Ethnic slurs or throwing things are not generally regarded as marks of strong character. Ms. Clinton, of course, denies that it ever happened. It sort of depends though on what the meaning of ``it'' is. Does it not? Her husband says it did not happen, or at least not quite the way the other witnesses claimed it happened. He says something like it may have happened, because he says, and I quote, she has never been ``pure on profanity.'' Not much of a defense there. There are three witnesses who claim she did, and two, she and her husband, who claim she did not. I just want to ask one question. Can anyone imagine Barbara Bush being accused of this or Nancy Reagan or Rosalyn Carter or Betty Ford or Pat Nixon or Lady Bird Johnson? There is definitely a stature gap here.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLauro amendment. This amendment has been offered and defeated for the last 5 years, but our pro-choice colleagues are at it again. In effect, it would force taxpayers to fund abortion. The pro-life language which this would strike prevents taxpayer funds from paying for abortions in Federal employee health benefit plans except when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape and incest. In 1998, the Federal Government contributed on the average 72 percent of the money toward the purchase of health insurance for its employees. Because taxpayers are the employers of Federal workers, employers determine the benefits employees get. And a large majority of taxpayers do not want their tax dollars to be used to pay for abortion. Mr. Chairman, should taxpayers be forced to underwrite the cost of abortions for Federal employees regardless of their income? According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, only 23 percent of those polled said that national health care plans should cover abortions, while 72 percent said those costs should be paid for directly by the women who have them. When an ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans if they agree or disagree with the statement, ``The Federal Government should pay for an abortion for any women who wants it and cannot afford to pay it,'' 69 percent disagreed. The Center for Gender Equality has reported that 53 percent of women favor banning abortion except for rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions. The pro-life language in the bill that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) seeks to gut includes these exceptions. Obviously, if 53 percent of women favor banning abortion aside from these exceptions, then they would not want their tax dollars paying for abortion on demand as this amendment intends. In a Gallup poll from May of last year, 71 percent of Americans supported some or total restrictions on abortion. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, if a woman on death row is pregnant, should she or should she not be executed? That is the question that was recently posed to the Vice President, by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. The Vice President responded, ``I don't know what you're talking about.'' When Mr. Russert asked the question again, the Vice President laughed and said he would want to think about it. The next day, Mr. Gore emerged from his campaign headquarters and said that it should be up to the felon to decide. Mr. Speaker, most people on death row are there because they have willfully taken another life, often several of them. The death penalty is not given for manslaughter or third degree murder. It is only given to perpetrators of the most horrible crimes. How on Earth could the Vice President believe that we should be asking these people for permission to kill their innocent, unborn children along with themselves? Is the child guilty of the crimes as the mother? Obviously not. We have had laws for hundreds of years against executing pregnant death row inmates. Mr. Speaker, the Vice President's position on this issue is wrong. It is callous and cruel.