Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the numerous individuals being forgotten in the negotiations between the United States and the hard-line dictatorship in North Korea, those 200,000 plus people who suffer horrifying hardships in the prison camps throughout North Korea. Despite the fact that the leaders of North Korea refuse to admit that these concentration camps exist, they are real. Individuals that I have met with who have escaped from these camps have said that they want the world to know of the evil that is perpetrated there, even against children. One young man that I met with was imprisoned at the age of 10 because his grandfather was arrested, so they imprisoned the whole family. The North Korean regime incarcerates three generations of a family due to one generation's crime. What type of government imprisons a 10-year-old boy for his grandfather's crime? Certainly not a civilized one. Another woman I met with described the terrible torture she endured because she was honest and would not embezzle material goods for her boss. As a result, her boss concocted false crimes, she was arrested, taken to a prison camp and routinely tortured to the point of losing consciousness. As soon as she lost consciousness, the security officials would pour water on her face, revive her and begin the torture process over again, all of this for 14 months. Then she was sentenced to 13 years in a resocialization camp. Let me read some excerpts of testimony from torture survivors and escapees regarding the horrendous pain and suffering at the hands of this brutal and repressive regime, a regime that our administration is now looking to appease. ``Officers treated us like animals. They never explained to us what to do but communicated with the prisoners by whipping, kicking and cursing. While prisoners were being beaten, they couldn't stop working or look back at the officers. If a prisoner moaned or tried to avoid getting hit, she was put into solitary confinement, the worst punishment in prison. The solitary confinement cell was only high enough to allow a person to sit on the floor. Concrete thorns stuck out of the walls so the prisoner could not lean against them. The person could only sit and not move for many days. If prisoners were consigned to solitary confinement during the winter, their legs became paralyzed.'' ``The different forms of torture are too numerous to recount. Sometimes they put a wooden stick with sharp edges behind my knees, make me kneel, and then trampled my body with their heavy boots. At other times, they would hang me by the shackles on my wrists, high enough so that I was forced to stand on tiptoe. At night water would fill the solitary cell up to my stomach, depriving me of any sleep. During the long hours underwater my body would gradually swell up, making it difficult for me to keep my balance. If I fell, the guards kicked me until I scrambled up again in extreme pain and fatigue.'' ``The prisoners in the export factory were treated even worse than those in the other factories. Our days were a series of unendurable labor. Getting kicked and slapped was common. The female prisoners got used to an officer's kick or slap on the face. After a few years of little food, no sunshine, constant beatings and demanding work, prisoners began to lose the strength in their backbones. As the spine weakened, ligaments started popping out at the back of their necks. The prisoners became ugly like beasts. The export production was the fruit of unbelievable human abuse. These exports went to Japan, to Poland, to France.'' I would ask, do we want to participate in this as well? Let me end with this quote: ``When pregnant women came to prison, they were forced to abort their babies. Poison was injected into the babies cuddled in their mother's wombs. After the injection, the pregnant woman suffered tremendous pain until the babies were stillborn about 24 hours later. Medical officers walked around the pregnant women and kicked their swollen bellies if they screamed or moaned.'' Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. These are a few excerpts of people that I have met. We must not forget these people. We must fight to stop the painful, horrifying torture and the other human rights abuses the North Korean people are enduring at the hands of the brutal dictatorship ruling that country.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, our national security is serious business. The American people have a right to know that we are safeguarding our defense secrets well. But the Clinton-Gore administration has botched the job. A suspected spy was allowed access to critical secrets in Los Alamos for 17 months after FBI Director Freeh advised the administration he should be removed from classified areas. Between November of 1997 and November of 1998, 191 supercomputers were shipped to Communist China. Only one was checked by the administration to make sure it was not being used for weapons development. In 1996, the Loral Corporation was found by the Department of Defense to have damaged our national security by sending critical missile technologies to the Chinese, but the administration went ahead and had them keep launching missiles in China, ignoring DOD's recommendations. I might add, the CEO of this company gives $1 million a year to the Democratic National Committee. In June we found out that hard drives containing secret nuclear data were missing for a month before even anyone noticed. Mr. Speaker, we have a security problem in this administration. It needs to be addressed immediately.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote no on the proposed amendment, the Greenwood motion to strike. The compromise language already in the bill is the result of long negotiations between this Congress and the President last year. At that time those of us in the House who believe in the sanctity of life felt strongly that no taxpayer money should be used to fund groups that perform or promote abortion or lobby for abortion laws overseas. The President, needless to say, does not agree with our position; and so we did what we are supposed to do in the legislative process, we compromised. We did not get everything we wanted, and neither did the President. Mr. Chairman, these negotiations took a long time and a lot of effort to produce the best possible result for all concerned. More to the point, the President signed it. To remove the compromise language would undo all of that hard work. Why reopen a controversy that has already been settled? I would like to remind my colleagues that under the Reagan-Bush administration, international family planning funds were abortion free, and they got their yearly grants as long as they were abortion free. Most family planning organizations agreed to those conditions. Only two disagreed, one which is responsible for 200,000 abortions a year in the United States refused funds in order to continue their proabortion activities. The second day after President Clinton was first inaugurated, he issued executive orders. One of the first executive orders he issued was the Mexico City reversal of the pro-life policies, and so the organizations through most of the Clinton administration have received their yearly subsidy with the ability to promote and perform. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that removing this language is really a radical departure of the well being of the American people. The effect of this amendment would be to allow virtually unlimited funding to the international abortion industry and the abortion lobbyists. It would remove the cap of $385 million, which is the grant money they receive every year, and even the President says that abortions should be rare. A vote for this amendment is a vote to spend. They could potentially spend up to $1.3 billion to promote abortion worldwide to lobby other governments against the abortion laws. This is not something the House should be voting for. More than half the nations of the world have laws restricting abortions. Why should we use taxpayer money from the United States to fund international family planning and lobbyists? Who are we to be sending lobbyists into foreign lands to change policies of other governments that even the American people would not want? Being a superpower does not give us that sort of authority. The Mexico City policy also recognizes that money is fungible: in one pocket, out the other. The U.S. taxpayers do not want their money going to organizations which do this. Let us vote against this amendment and urge my colleagues to support the present language.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate a constituent of mine, Mr. Rea Redifer, an artist of the Brandywine tradition, on a lifetime of artistic accomplishment. Mr. Redifer, who comes from Chester County, Pennsylvania, is a watercolorist, but he is also a writer and filmmaker who has focused his work around the life of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. He has won literary awards and even an Oscar nomination for his work. His portraits of Lincoln are favorites of mine. A print of one hangs in my office. His paintings capture not only the likeness of Lincoln, but also the soul of the man. In Mr. Redifer's images we can see both the sadness and moral fortitude of the President. I am glad to have arranged an exhibit of Mr. Redifer's work to be displayed in the Capitol for the next couple of weeks in the Rotunda of the Cannon House Office Building. I encourage all of my colleagues, congressional staff, and tourists to take a few moments to stop by and enjoy Mr. Redifer's fine artistic accomplishments. Again, I congratulate Mr. Redifer on his wonderful artworks, and thank him for sharing them with us here at the Capitol.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the freedom to worship freely according to the dictates of one's conscience is one of the basic rights enshrined in the bill of rights and in similar documents around the world. The European Convention on Human Rights is another document that guarantees freedom of religion, but the powerful socialist party in France has compiled a list of 173 denominations that it considers dangerous; they call them cults. The socialist parliament is about to send legislation to President Chirac that would imprison any member of these denominations for up to 2 years for proselytizing or evangelism. Who is on the list? Well, it includes the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Scientologists, but it also includes Baptists and other well-known evangelical denominations. Mr. Speaker, the President and Vice President of the United States are both Southern Baptists. Were they to live in France and invite friends to church, they might be imprisoned for that under this proposed law. The freedom of religion is threatened around the world, but not just in Third World countries. Mr. Speaker, we must stand against bigotry of every kind, including religious bigotry.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, ruled that the Nebraska law banning partial birth abortion was unconstitutional. Actually, partial birth abortion is not an abortion. It is a pre-term delivery that results in infanticide. Partial-birth abortion is so gruesome and barbaric that it is beyond the pale of any nation wishing to be known as civilized. It is in every case unjustifiable. It is in no case the lesser of two evils. It violates every principle of dignity, morality, ethics, and law that this Nation has stood for since its founding. The Supreme Court, acting as an oligarchy of five, has imposed infanticide on a decent nation. Sadly, it is declared the murder of innocent, healthy newborns to be within the bounds of the law. The court used Roe v. Wade as the basis for their decision, showing how radical the Roe decision really was. This ruling, like the Dredd Scott decision, has excluded a whole class of human beings from constitutional protection. Shame on the court. This is a dark day for America.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Values Action Team, I rise to bring to the Members' attention the strong opposition of many of the outside pro-family groups to the Archer-Houghton disclosure bill, H.R. 4717. Since this bill has been broadened to include, not only 527s, but now 501(c)(4)s, (c)(5)s, (c)(6)s, and it is being marketed as a disclosure bill, the provision would result in such burdensome regulations that many of these organizations feel they would be out of business as far as issue advocacy and representing their constituencies in lobbying. I submit for the Record about 30 letters from 30 organizations, including the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Christian Coalition, National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, American Conservative Union, Traditional Values Coalition, U.S. Business and Industry Council, Citizens Against Government Waste, and many others, and trust that Members will take this into consideration. The letters are as follows: National Right To Life Committee, Inc., Washington, DC, June 23, 2000. Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to express the strong objections of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to the punitive and unconstitutional legislation approved yesterday by the Ways & Means Committee, which is expected to come before the full House during the week of June 26. NRLC, Inc. and its state affiliates are 501(c)(4) corporations. These organizations have non-profit status simply because they exist not to make a profit but to promote a cause--the protection of innocent human life. Contributions to 501(c)(4) corporations are not tax-deductible. HR 4717 is being marketed as merely requiring ``disclosure'' by organizations, including 501(c)(4) corporations, that engage in so-called ``political activities.'' But in fact it would impose extremely burdensome regulations on the day-to-day advocacy and grassroots lobbying activities of many long-established and respectable membership organizations, including NRLC and NRLC's state affiliates. The bill would required groups such as NRLC and NRLC affiliates to file reports with the IRS giving a ``detailed description,'' including ``the purpose and intended results,'' of communications to our members or to members of the public merely because those communications mention the name of a member of Congress, or Vice-president Gore or some other ``candidate.'' (Under current federal law, the term ``candidate'' includes every member of Congress who has not announced his retirement, including each senator throughout his six-year term.) These requirements are triggered by an expenditure of as little as $1,000 on any such activity. This requirement would apply, among other things, to routine grassroots alerts regarding upcoming legislative events--whether disseminated by mail, telephone, paid ads, e-mail alert systems, or websites. Incredibly, these requirements would apply even to communications to our own members that mention the name of a member of Congress or other federal politician, if the communication ``urges such members to communicate with another person or to take an action as a result of such communication.'' Thus, an ``action alert'' in the National Right to Life News, urging our members to write ``letters to the editor'' of local newspapers expressing support for the ``Hyde Amendment,'' would need to be reported to the IRS. Indeed, if a group spent $1,000 on a mailing to urge its members to ``pray for the defeat of the Kennedy bill,'' that group would be required to give a ``detailed description'' of that activity to the IRS, including a listing of ``the candidates intended to be affected.'' In addition, the bill would unconstitutionally require that our organizations report to the government--and place in the public domain--the name, address, occupation, and employer of any person who contributes $1,000 per year or more to our organizations. Stripping our best donors of privacy in this manner will expose them to harassment and exploitation by fly-by-night telemarketers and other outside parties. It would also expose them to retribution from employers or pro- abortion activists who do not agree with their support for the right-to-life cause. This is not a hypothetical concern-- pro-abortion activists have in the past used boycotts and other means to ``punish'' businessmen and others who support pro-life causes. Respectfully, we do not believe that the Constitution permits our elected representatives to demand that groups of citizens, organized to promote a cause, must report to government bureaucrats every instance in which they dare to utter the name of a federal politician to multiple listeners. The Constitution protects the rights of our members to associate, to express opinions on the actions of federal politicians, and to urge other citizens to communicate with their elected representatives, without being subjected to intrusive oversight by politicians, political appointees, or federal bureaucrats. Finally, it is worth noting that the burdens imposed by HR 4417 would not apply to the largest organizational sponsor of pro-abortion lobbying and issue advocacy--the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). That is because PPFA is 501(c)(3) organization, which are not covered by the bill. Private donors to PPFA obtain tax deductions, unlike donors to NRLC. Yet, because PPFA files under the special 501(h) category, PPFA can and does engage extensively in mass communications that mention the names of members of Congress (issue advocacy), including grassroots lobbying campaigns aimed at Congress. Inclusion of 501(h) organizations would not make the bill constitutional, but the exclusion of PPFA makes the bill even more outrageous. We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation. We intend to inform our members and donors regarding how members of the House vote regarding protection of their rights to privacy and their ability to collectively petition their elected representatives. Sincerely, David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., Executive Director. Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with concern over our administration's role in trampling the rights of the people of Western Sahara. For several years, both Morocco and Western Sahara have participated in intense negotiations led by former Secretary of State James Baker. The negotiations ended in both parties agreeing to a referendum for self-determination. Unfortunately, the recent May 30 meeting of the U.N. revealed that both France and the U.S. administration are now willing to abandon the settlement plan and the right of the Sahrawi people through self- determination. Our taxpayers, through the U.N., have invested $530 million in peacekeeping to end the conflict in Northwest Africa. Why is our government supportive of East Timorese and now willing to allow the human rights of Sahrawis to be thoroughly violated? I include for the Record a letter that expresses the dismay of Members of Congress on our administration's action. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 12, 2000. Hon. William J. Clinton, President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our great concern over the continued delay in the United Nations holding a free, fair, and transparent referendum for the people of Western Sahara. The continued postponements reflect an apparent lack of willingness of the United Nations and the United States Administration to use their leadership to urge all parties involved to follow through with their commitments to uphold the fundamental human right of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. We are pleased that finally, after nine long years and the expenditure of approximately $500 million on peacekeeping efforts, the United Nations was able to establish a public list of eligible voters on January 17, 2000. We know that the identification process was difficult and we congratulate the United Nations for successfully accomplishing this difficult task. We are very concerned, however, about reports in the United Nations that the U.S. Administration and the French Government are contemplating abandoning the negotiated, signed settlement plans under the pretext that there allegedly is no mechanism to enforce the result of the referendum. The May 30, 2000 meeting of the United Nations Security Council revealed that these two governments are willing to completely disregard the negotiated Settlement Plan and the right of the people of Western Sahara to self- determination. Mr. President, the fact that our Administration is willing to disregard the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination when the American Revolution was based upon that very right is shameful. We have supported the right of the people of East Timor to determine their future. The people of Western Sahara deserve no less. It is vital that neither the United States nor any other nation or international body pre-judge the results of the referendum--a referendum which both Morocco and the Polisario have agreed to and which the United States taxpayers and others have invested over $530 million. The failure of the United Nations to hold this referendum regarding the Western Sahara would lead to instability and insecurity in North Africa and the blame would fall squarely on the shoulders of the United Nations, the Administration of the United States, and the French Government. Mr. President, it would be more unfortunate if the United States encouraged or was part of a movement to undermine the fundamental human right of self-determination and carefully negotiated agreements about the Western Sahara. We respectfully urge you to use your leadership position to remind the King of Morocco of his commitments to the Settlement Plan and allowing the referendum over Western Sahara to proceed without further delay. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Joseph R. Pitts; Donald M. Payne; Wayne T. Gilchrest; David M. McIntosh; William J. Jefferson; Charles T. Canady; Jim DeMint; James A. Traficant, Jr.; Eni F.H. Faleomavaega; Bob Clement; Steve Largent; Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.; Christopher H. Smith; Anna G. Eshoo; Tony P. Hall; Gene Green; Tom Tancredo; Richard H. Baker; Alcee L. Hastings; Ron Packard; Luis V. Gutierrez; Robert A. Borski.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeGette amendment. The DeGette amendment is public funding of abortions. We should never forget that abortion is the most violent form of death known to mankind. It is death by dismemberment, by decapitation, by horrible violence; and it is outrageous that the pro-abortion radicals would want to force the American taxpayers to pay for the abortion of Federal prisoners. Instead of sending a message to Federal prisoners that the answer to their problem is to kill the baby, they should be shown to take responsibility, to consider what is best for the child they are carrying. While these women in prison deserve our sympathy, our compassion, paying for an abortion will neither show them that we are concerned for their well-being nor will it help them put their lives back together. By offering care, not abortions, to prisoners and their unborn babies, these women will see that problems are not solved by eliminating other human beings, and men and women should be taking responsibility and consider what is best for the child they conceived. The children of prisoners are of no less value than any other children. No child should be treated like a throwaway. Being the child of an incarcerated woman does not make anyone less human. Mr. Chairman, someone said in the debate when we were debating this last session, who will speak for these children, and went on to say we must speak for these children. Well, if that is true, that we must speak for these children, then I guess the supporters of the DeGette amendment believe that unborn children of Federal prisoners want to be killed by their mothers. In fact, children must desire death so much that the American taxpayer should be forced to fund it. We should not be punishing the baby for the crimes or sins of their mothers. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the death of unborn children at the expense of all Americans. I urge a no vote on the DeGette amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court begins every session every day with a prayer that goes something like this, ``God save the United States and this honorable court.'' This Congress, every Congress begins every session every day with a prayer by a chaplain paid with tax dollars. The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from creating any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that students may not give voluntary prayers before football games even if students vote to do so. In issuing this football prayer decision, the Supreme Court fumbled. They fumbled before. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Supreme Court decision. They reversed themselves over 100 times in our Nation's history. They fumbled in 1857 when they said Dred Scott was not a person because of the color of his skin. The Supreme Court fumbled Monday when it ruled against free voluntary speech. Rather than preserving our rights, the court eroded them, and they ensured years of costly litigation for lawyers. But I hope, yes I pray, if I am allowed to do so, that one day this decision will be overturned also.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment to our Constitution establishes the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of grievances. This debate combines two of our most precious freedoms, the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. These freedoms are the core of the first amendment and the Bill of Rights. Do we really believe our Founding Fathers wanted the Federal Government to restrict or regulate free religious speech on our airwaves? This legislation will send a strong message to the FCC that they cannot and should not restrict free speech of religious broadcasters. The Federal power to issue licenses to regulate commerce is a powerful one. It should not be misused to restrict, control, or regulate our freedom to speak or worship as we see fit. There is nothing that teaches children more that something is irrelevant than to require something be completely ignored. To require silence teaches irrelevance. We might as well teach religious bigotry. The FCC tried once to restrict religious speech in the public square. This bill will make sure they will not do it again. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the legislation and reject the amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers saw a national security as the very first duty of government. First amongst the powers given to Congress is the power to provide for the common defense. The first duty listed for the President is to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. National security is a very serious matter; and when nuclear secrets are lost, our national safety is threatened. Then why have we seen repeated security breaches at the Los Alamos National Laboratory? Dr. Wen Ho Lee is still in jail awaiting trial for mishandling secret data a year ago. When that happened, Energy Secretary Richardson opposed new security measures, insisting that he wanted to be in charge and that he could handle the security himself. Clearly, he has failed to do that. Some think we have better security at Wal-Mart than we do in Los Alamos. Richardson blamed the University of California, but even his director of counterintelligence says we cannot rule out espionage. If the Secretary of Energy cannot provide security for our Nation's top nuclear secrets, the President needs to find someone who can.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, in poll after poll, the American people have made it clear that the number one issue on their minds is education. Americans want to make sure their children are well prepared for tomorrow. Americans want to know that their education tax dollars are being spent on their children, not on bureaucracies or needless studies. Why is it, then, that this administration's Education Department got a D-minus from Ernst and Young, a private auditing firm? If a private company had gotten that rating, the Securities and Exchange Commission would suspend their stock from trading. Why is it that the Department of Education's own employees are bilking the Department and sticking the taxpayers with the tab? Madam Speaker, we need to reform the Federal education bureaucracy. We need to make sure our tax dollars are being spent in classrooms, not in Washington. We need to prepare our children to be tomorrow's leaders. We need to pass the Republican Dollars to the Classroom Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, as a cochairman of the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, I am very pleased to rise to speak in favor of this resolution. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for his leadership in putting together this bipartisan effort to move the resolution. Statistics show that the American family is under siege as an institution. Divorce rates are very high. Single parenthood is becoming more and more common in communities all across the Nation. About one-third of all babies in this country born are born out of wedlock today. For some demographic groups, that rate is as high as 70 percent. Tonight, one in four American children that go to bed will go to bed in a home in which their father does not reside. Times have certainly changed. In 1960, more than 80 percent of America's children lived with both of their parents in a home where both parents were married. In the last census, that number dropped to 57.7 percent. When a family breaks apart in divorce, children most often live with their mother. The effects of growing up without a father are becoming clear. According to the 1996 Gallup poll, 79.1 percent of Americans feel, and I quote, ``the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home.'' I will never forget hearing the famous psychiatrist Dr. Armond Nicoli speak about fathers and the importance of spending time with their children. He had done a study of the fathers in the 128 corridor around Boston and, actually, calculated the amount of time in minutes that a father spent with his children today and compared that with fathers in Russia, and he made this point. He said some people say, well, I do not spend a lot of time with my children, but the time I spend is quality time. And then he said, you know, quality of time, like the quality of air and oxygen is very important, but the lack of it will kill you. It is important that we spend time and spend a good amount of time with our children. What role does a father play in a home? Well, I am sure we all have our own stories and mine is not necessarily right, but some of the things I used to try to do is I spent 3 days a week in the State Capitol away from my children, and every night I would get them on the phone and talk to each one of them on the phone. I would schedule breakfast every quarter, every third month with each of them individually out in a restaurant with them, to listen to them, to talk to them. It was a wonderful time, and my kids are all grown, they still like to have breakfast with me. I still send them each a letter every month. There are lots of different kinds of things that we can do. As families we can read to them every evening. There are so many times and things that we can do to express our love and spend our time with our children. Some men perhaps make better fathers than others, I suppose, but clearly, overall, children with two parents are greatly benefitted by it. Thank God for our single parents and our single moms, but they need help, and studies show that even in a high crime or an inner-city neighborhood, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable two parent homes do not become delinquents. Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school. They are less prone to depression, and they have more successful relationships. The National Fatherhood Initiative founded by Dr. Wade Horn and Don Eberly from my district have helped to stem the tide of children being raised in homes without fathers. Dr. Horn tells us that when the National Fatherhood Initiative was founded, the topic of fatherhood was still not considered an issue of national significance. The first and the most important task that NFI set out to accomplish was to stimulate a broad-based societywide social movement on behalf of involved, committed, responsible fatherhood. The National Fatherhood Initiative is doing a very effective job, I think, and celebrities like Tom Selleck, James Earl Jones, Tiger Woods and his father Earl, General Colin Powell, Coach Joe Paterno have all lent their names and efforts to this cause. I, along with several other Members in Congress, have come together to form this task force on fatherhood promotion trying to raise the profile of the issue by legislative have means, and the NFI has been very successful. Thousands of community-based grassroots programs designed to provide support, skills, encouragement to fathers have sprung up all over the country. Dozens of governors have held fatherhood conferences. Fatherlessness is getting the attention that it finally deserves. According to the 1996 Gallup poll, 90.9 percent of parents believe it is important for children to live in a home with both father and mother. This resolution recognizes that the creation of a better country depends in large part on the active involvement of both parents, fathers in helping, rearing and developing their children. This resolution urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing his children, to encourage the academic moral, spiritual development of his children. This resolution urges governments and institutions at every level to remove barriers to father involvement, to enact public policies that are father friendly, that encourage and support the efforts of fathers who want to become more engaged in the lives of their children. It encourages each father to devote time, energy and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but also, more importantly, a secure, and nurturing, family environment. Finally, this resolution expresses our support for the National Fatherhood Initiative, its work to inspire and equip fathers to be positively involved in raising and developing their children. Madam Speaker, the family is the core of American society. As goes the American family, so goes America. The most important thing we can do is to make sure the American family is on a strong footing, and that means restoring American fatherhood. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, some people think that conservatives hate the arts. They think that, because we oppose Federal subsidies for the arts, that we are uncultured dolts who do not appreciate the finer things in life. Let me try to correct the record, Mr. Chairman. The arts are an essential part of our culture. I love the arts. I love art in many forms. In fact, I am an amateur artist myself. I do not want this to be a show-and-tell session, but let me just illustrate. Here is a print of an oil I did last year of an area in my district called the Brandywine Valley. Here is a little sculpture that I do for volunteers who donate for people helping in my campaign. My daughter is an artist. We have a show at this present time in Lancaster County at an art gallery there. We have never received one red cent. There are millions of amateur artists out there who do not get any kind of funding. Mr. Chairman, in fact, there is no correlation between NEA funding and the state of the arts in America. The arts are flourishing in America today. It is not because they are subsidized. Although NEA funding has gone down as much as 40 percent in the past few years, there are more people working in the arts today than ever before. Employment in the arts is growing three and a half times faster than general employment at a time when we reduced NEA funding by millions of dollars. In the last 5 years, attendance at artistic activities have increased by 37 percent, remember all this time when NEA funds are decreasing. Now, the thing that outrages the taxpayers is when the NEA, and they have the pattern of doing this, funds the shock art, the outrageous art, the anti-Catholic bigotry, the pornography. There is a play recently in New York City entitled ``The Pope and the Witch,'' which is funded. It depicts the Pope called John Paul, II, as a heroin addicted paranoid advocating birth control and legalization of drugs. As long as this type of funding is done by NEA, we need to send them a signal and give them the modest cut of 2 percent. I support the Stearns amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise out of concern for the human rights situation in Russia. Yesterday, the Government of Russia took a giant step backwards in human rights as Vladimir Goussinsky, the CEO of Media Most, was arrested, imprisoned and is at present being interrogated. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Russia. Mr. Goussinsky has been the most pro-Western and independent of Russia's media entrepreneurs and has rallied strong support for democratic reforms in Russia. This arrest comes on the heels of the raid of Media Most offices several weeks ago and demonstrates how human rights, particularly freedom of the press, is deteriorated under the administration of President Putin. The Putin administration has taken extreme measures to control information. Government officials report about the ``problem'' of the media giving airtime and print space to views of ``terrorists.'' Mr. Speaker, expressing political and religious views, even if it is in opposition to the government, is not terrorism. It is freedom. I urge the Russian people to speak out against the latest abuse of freedom by the Putin administration and call on President Clinton to pressure the administration to release Mr. Goussinsky.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Caspar Weinberger, our former Secretary of Defense, wrote a short column for Forbes Magazine recently that should make every conservative and every journalist stop and think for a moment. Let me quote: ``Why is it,'' the magazine asks, ``that the press always calls the worst elements in Iran the `conservatives' and refers to the group identified with President Khatami as the `reformers' or even the `liberals'? ``The fanatical mullahs who rule Iran . . . oppose human rights, freedom of speech and religion, and all other manifestations of an individual's right to achieve all he or she can. ``They believe in an all-powerful state, ruled by them, where the individual does not count. ``This is not conservatism. ``While President Khatami is not pro-America, he and certainly some of his followers believe in human rights and far more personal freedom than do the clerics. ``That is conservatism.'' Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder what definition our friends in the Fourth Estate are using. Listen to their language. Is anyone they do not like a conservative?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, who would ever have thought that we would be talking about the horror of modern-day slavery in this new millennium? Francis Bok is a 21-year-old native of southern Sudan. At age 7 he was captured and enslaved during an Arab militia raid on his village. Francis saw children and adults brutalized and killed all around him. He was strapped to a donkey and taken north, and for 10 years he lived as a family slave. He was forced to sleep with cattle and endure daily beatings and eat terrible food. In December of 1996, Francis escaped to a nearby town where local policemen enslaved him again. Again he escaped. Eventually he reached Khartoum, the capital, where he was arrested by security forces and jailed for 7 months. After being released, Mr. Bok was able to make his way to Cairo, Egypt, and finally, in 1999, the U.N. resettled him in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I met Francis yesterday. It is an incredible story. It is incomprehensible that slavery still persists in the world today. It is harder to understand why the Clinton administration has not made stopping slavery and genocide in Sudan a priority.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to request truth in advertising. Is America not the land of opportunity? Is not the sweat of our brow, the work of our hands supposed to be all that is required to succeed in this country? Well, that may be the case until the farm or the family business is ready to be passed to the next generation. A family-owned farm or business stands to lose more than half of everything to the Federal estate tax, which is really a tax on death. Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of families are forced to sell or abandon businesses after one generation because of death taxes. Only 13 percent survive to the third generation. Farmland is disappearing in America by millions of acres. Mr. Speaker, how can we expect the people to work hard and achieve the American dream if we are just going to take it from them in the end? When a business closes, jobs are lost; on an average, 30 jobs for every small business liquidated due to death taxes. Our national productivity suffers. On the other hand, 60 percent of business owners say they would add jobs if the estate tax was repealed, and that is just what we ought to do. Mr. Speaker, let us get rid of this terrible tax on dying.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased with the passage of yesterday's legislation to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China. Passage of PNTR is the first step in reforming China and advancing religious freedom and human rights for the Chinese people. Of course, change will not occur overnight in China. However, it will occur gradually through policies of normal trade, exchange and engagement, through peoples of faith, scholars, the workforce, and businesses. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a powerful statement signed by a broad spectrum of religious leaders in support of PNTR. These individuals and their organizations have worked, and will continue to work, for the advancement of religious liberty and human rights. Statement by Religious Leaders in Support of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China (Expanded List of Signatories) May 23, 2000. Dear Member of Congress: Soon you will be asked to vote on an issue that will set the course for U.S.-China relations for years to come: enacting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. Your vote will also have an impact on how human rights and religious freedom will advance for the people of China in the years ahead. We are writing to urge you to vote for PNTR for China because we believe that this is the best way to advance these concerns over the long term. We share your concern for advancing human rights and religious freedom for the people of China. The findings of the recent report from the U.S. International Religious Freedom Committee are disturbing to us. Clearly, the Chinese government still has a long way to go. The question for us all is: What can the U.S. government do that will best advance human rights and religious freedom for the people of China? Are conditions more likely to improve through isolation and containment or through opening trade, investment, and exchange between peoples? Let us look first at what has already occurred within China over the past twenty years. The gradual opening of trade, investment, travel, and exchange between China and the rest of the world has led to significant, positive changes for human rights and religious freedom in China. We observe the following: The number of international religious missions operating openly in China has grown rapidly in recent years. Today these groups provide educational, humanitarian, medical, and development assistance in communities across China. Despite continued, documented acts of government oppression, people in China nonetheless can worship, participate in communities of faith, and move about the country much more freely today than was even imaginable twenty years ago. Today, people can communicate with each other and the outside world much more easily and with much less governmental interference through the tools of business and trade: telephones, cell phones, faxes, and e-mail. On balance, foreign investment has introduced positive new labor practices into the Chinese workplace, stimulating growing aspirations for labor and human rights among Chinese workers. These positive developments have come about gradually in large part as a result of economic reforms by the Chinese government and the accompanying normalization of trade, investment, and exchange with the outside world. The developing relationships between Chinese government officials, business managers, workers, professors, students, and people of faith and their foreign counterparts are reflected in the development of new laws, government policies, business and labor practices, personal freedom, and spiritual seeking. Further, the Chinese government is much more likely to develop the rule of law and observe international norms of behavior if it is recognized by the U.S. government as an equal, responsible partner within the community of nations. The U.S. government and governments around the world have a continuing, important role to play in challenging one another through international forums to fully observe standards for human rights and religious freedom. However, we do not believe that the annual debate in the U.S. Congress, linking justifiable concern for human rights and religious freedom in China to the threat of unilateral U.S. trade sanctions, has been productive toward that end. Change will not occur overnight in China. Nor can it be imposed from outside. Rather, change will occur gradually, and it will be inspired and shaped by the aspirations, culture, and history of the Chinese people. We on the outside can help advance religious freedom and human rights best through policies of normal trade, exchange and engagement for the mutual benefit of peoples of faith, scholars, workers, and businesses. Enacting permanent normal trade relations with China is the next, most important legislative step that Congress can take to help in this process. Sincerely, Dr. Donald Argue, (Former President, National Association of Evangelicals, representing 27 million Christians in the United States of America); John A. Buehrens, (Unitarian Universalist Association); Bruce Birchard, (Friends General Conference); Myrrl Byler, (China Education Exchange, Mennonite Church); Reverend Richard W. Cain, ((Emeritus) President, Claremont School of Theology); Ralph Covell, (Senior Professor of World Christianity, Denver Seminary); Charles A. Davis, PhD, (The Evangelical Alliance Missions); Father Robert F. Drinan, (Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Member of Congress, 1971-1981); Samuel E. Ericsson, (President, Advocates International, a faith-based global network of lawyers, judges, clergy, and national leaders reaching over 100 nations for justice, reconciliation, and ethics with offices on five continents); Nancy Finneran, (Sisters of Loretto Community); Brent Fulton, (President, ChinaSource, a non-profit, Christian Evangelical organization connecting knowledge and leaders in service to China); Dr. Richard L. Hamm, (Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)); Kevin M. Hardin, (University Language Services); J. Daniel Harrison, (President, Leadership Development International); Bob Heimburger, (Professor (Ret.) Indiana University); Rev. Earnest W. Hummer, (President, China Outreach Ministries); John Jamison, (Intercultural Exchange Network); Rodolf Mak, Ph.D., (Director of Chinese Church Mobilization, OMF International); Jim Nickel, (ChinaSource, a non-profit, Christian Evangelical organization connecting knowledge and leaders in serve to China); Don Reeves, (General Secretary (Interim) American Friends Service Committee); Rabbi Arthur Schneier, D.D., (President, Appeal of Conscience Foundation); Phil Schwab, (ChinaTeam International Services, Ltd.); Dr. Stephen Steele, (Dawn Ministries); Rev. Daniel B. Su, (Special Assistant to the President, China Outreach Ministries); Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, (The United Methodist Church); Dr. James H. Taylor III, (President, MSI Professional Services International); Finn Torjesen, (Executive Director, Evergreen Family Friendship Service, a Christian, non-profit benefit organization working in China); Joe Volk, (Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation); Rev. Dr. Daniel E. Weiss, (American Baptist Churches, USA); Dr. Hans M. Wilhelm, (China Partner, an organization serving Church of China by training emerging young leaders); Rev. Dr. Andrew Young, (President, National Council of Churches, former ambassador to the United Nations and member of Congress); Danny Yu, (Christian Leadership Exchange).

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in 1981, while the Nation celebrated the 200th anniversary of the British surrender at Yorktown, President Reagan joked that ``our enemy is no longer Red Coats, but red ink.'' For 40 long years, this country sank deeper and deeper into debt. Congress seemed addicted to spending money on every project imaginable. But never during the 8 years of Reagan's presidency did the Congress ever send him a balanced budget, not once. Never during the Carter, Ford, or Nixon administrations did the Democratic Congress ever send the President a balanced budget, nor during the Bush administration. The same was true the first 2 years that President Clinton enjoyed one-party rule in this town, no balanced budget. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can appropriate money for spending. Within 3 years of taking over Congress, the Republicans not only balanced the budget but also began paying down the debt. For decades, the other side had the chance to balance the budget but never did. The Republican Congress did it, and now we are reaping the rewards.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the following statement from Reverend Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals. Reverend Cizik, who has 30 years of experience on religious issues in China, believes that granting permanent normal trade relations with China will ultimately result in greater religious freedom for the Chinese people. National Association of Evangelicals, Azusa, CA, May 16, 2000. Re: Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as the school year draws to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a teacher who has spent the last forty-one years educating students in my district. Mr. Andrew U. Amway is a history teacher, the head of the social studies department, a coach, a club advisor and a mentor to countless Hempfield High School students. After spending one year teaching elementary students in a different school district, Mr. Amway came to Hempfield where he spent the rest of his career. Many students learned not only American history in his classroom, but also to take pride in being an American. He is an old-fashioned teacher that believes that hard work is the key to success. And he has certainly been successful in teaching and leading his students. The accomplishments of his students both in academics and in life speak for themselves. Not only is Mr. Amway a dedicated teacher, but he served as the coach for several athletic teams at the high school--boys and girls tennis, boys and girls swimming, and cross country. During his thirty-nine years of coaching his combined record is an astonishing 1397-254-4. His teams have captured numerous district and league titles. It is safe to say that Mr. Amway knows how to get the best out of his students both in class and on the playing field. Forty-one years is a long time to work in any job, but it is particularly unusual in this day and age to find a teacher that has been in the classroom that long. At Hempfield High School, it is the end of an era. Thank you, Mr. Amway for your many years of service.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the SSI program to assist the elderly, the blind and the disabled. Since the 1970s, the program has become fraught with waste, fraud and abuse. Prisoners, illegal aliens and drug addicts all drain resources from this program. Saddest of all, parents are getting their children to lie in order to bilk SSI benefits from the government. For example, two parents in Michigan had their children lie to doctors about their medical condition so they could receive $42,639 in SSI benefits per year. Meanwhile, they locked their children in the basement of their home, physically abused them and forced them to steal for them. The Federal Government should not be subsidizing child abusers, especially with taxpayer moneys reserved for the elderly and the disabled. As we decide spending levels in our budget, let us also focus on eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from the Federal Government.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Clinton with the provision to prevent DOD medical treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother was in danger or in the case of rape or incest. The provision reversed a Clinton Administration policy that was instituted on January 22, 1993, permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities. The Sanchez amendment, which would repeal the pro-life provision, reopens this issue and attempts to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. The House rejected this same amendment last year. We rejected it in committee this year. We should reject it again today. When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was first promulgated, all military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. Therefore, if the Sanchez amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, resources would be used to search for, hire and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. Military treatment facilities, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life, the child in the womb. I urge Members to maintain current law and vote ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment.