Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a portion of this 21- page report, entitled ``The State of Our Union, the Social Health of Marriage in America,'' by David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. It says, and I quote: Key social indicators suggest a substantial weakening of the institution of marriage in America. Americans have become less likely to marry. When they do marry, their marriages are less happy, and married couples face a high likelihood of divorce. The report goes on to say many other things. It has many findings. It concludes that marriage is a fundamental social institution; that it is central to the nurture and raising of children. It is the social glue that reliably attaches fathers to children. It contributes to the physical, emotional and economic health of men, women, and children and, thus, to the Nation as a whole. Mr. Speaker, Congress should promote policies that value, endorse, and encourage marriage, not punish it. We should repeal the marriage penalty tax.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 659, the Patriot Act. I also want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for introducing this legislation and taking the lead in protecting these treasures, the Paoli and Brandywine battlefields. He has done a magnificent job of shepherding, of birddogging the bill through the legislative process and it was because of his able leadership that we are here today. This bill first came to the floor in June, and it passed overwhelmingly. Today the bill is before us again for the House to adopt a Senate amendment which I also hope the House will support overwhelmingly. The passage of the Patriot Act is essential for the preservation of two revolutionary war battlefields, Brandywine and Paoli. If we do not preserve these battlefields this year, we will lose both to the rapid development that is taking place in the region. Preserving America's historic treasures is essential if we as a Nation are to remember our past and our rich cultural heritage. It is particularly important to remember the sacrifices that our forefathers made to secure our independence from Great Britain and to build a new country that is today the world leader in freedom and democracy. Brandywine and Paoli battlefields are among the few Revolutionary War battlefields that remain unprotected. I have visited the Brandywine battlefield in my district, on numerous occasion, and with each visit I am more concerned that America may lose this important piece of our heritage to sprawling housing developments. The Patriot Act will help preserve a portion of the Brandywine battlefield where the most intense conflict and loss of life took place. The battle of the Brandywine was the largest battle of the Revolutionary War in terms of number of participants. Approximately 26,000 British and American troops gathered there. All of the generals were at that battle. It was also a major conflict in the British campaign of 1777, that conquered Philadelphia. While the British eventually took Philadelphia, the battle of the Brandywine was significant in delaying the British campaign and allowing the Congress to abandon the city and to move to Lancaster, also in my district, and then to York, to escape before the British takeover. History connects people and nurtures identity and community, and I think it is our responsibility to ensure that historical landmarks such as the Brandywine and Paoli battlefields are preserved for future generations. Preserving these battlefields will ensure that our children and our grandchildren will be able to enjoy and experience how these battles unfolded. In closing, I want to extend my thanks to the local communities in Chester County, near the Paoli and the Brandywine battlefields, for their unrelenting quest to save these monuments. This has been a grassroots effort, and it is now time for us to help them reach that goal. So I urge support the Patriot Act and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to commend the Pennsylvania Family Institute as it celebrates its Tenth Anniversary tonight. In those 10 years, the Institute has grown to be a strong and respected voice for the family in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The spirit of principled involvement that the Pennsylvania Family Institute encourages and engenders in Pennsylvania is to be applauded. Congratulations to the directors, staff and supporters of the Pennsylvania Family Institute for their work in service to Pennsylvania's families. During my service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, I had many occasions to work closely with the Institute's president, Michael Geer, on issues of prime concern to Pennsylvania's families. From its very first days, the Pennsylvania Family Institute has taken effective stands in support of the sanctity of life, in defense of marriage, for academic excellence in our schools, and for the promotion of a more civil society. And its recent leadership against the expansion of gambling in Pennsylvania has helped protect many children and families from the addiction and devastation wrought by casino gambling. Mr. Speaker, Dr. James Dobson, the guest of honor at tonight's Pennsylvania Family Institute 10th Anniversary Banquet, is an ideal man to speak, as Dr. Dobson has been a beacon of wisdom and insight for families around the world through his many books and his ministry at Focus on the Family. Here in Congress, I have had the opportunity to work with Dr. Dobson on a number of family issues. His energy, principle and dedication are nearly unmatched. Today, I also want to join the Pennsylvania Family Institute in remembrance of a true hero, William Bentley Ball, Esquire. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Ball for his exemplary dedication to the principles of liberty, fidelity to the Constitution and the defense of human life. Mr. Ball stood tall in defense of religious liberty and the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children in a time when both were under great attack. Again, my deep congratulations and best wishes to the Pennsylvania Family Institute for a terrific 10 years. I look forward to working with them in the years to come.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in debates in this body in recent weeks some Members have criticized measures aimed at protecting public religious expressions or allowing participation of faith-based institutions and programs in the public sphere. This argument is not founded in our history or heritage. It does not have its roots in our Constitution, but rather in the criticisms of revisionists who wish the Constitution said something other than what it actually does. The record, however, is replete with the words and writings of our framers and founders, those who wrote the Constitution, founded our government overwhelmingly about the role of government and religion. Consider the words of John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, the first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court. Jay declared quote: ``It is the duty of all wise, free and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion,'' end quote. The third chief justice, Oliver Ellsworth, echoed this by saying quote: ``Institutions for the promotion of good morals are objects of legislative provision and support among these religious institutions.'' Mr. Speaker, let us get back to our roots.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on May 6 of this year, 139 days ago, I joined with 415 of my colleagues here in the House in supporting H.R. 1259, the social security lockbox bill. The fight to stop the raid on social security in this year's budget debate offers the best possible reason for passing the social security lockbox bill. If the lockbox were in place this year, the big spenders would have to think twice before trying to go after the funds that rightly should be set aside for the seniors of today and tomorrow. We must stop balancing the Federal budget on the backs of our seniors and our social security trust fund. Unfortunately, Members of the minority in the other body refuse to allow this bill to be brought to the floor for a vote. Six times there has been an effort to end the filibuster. Six times that effort has failed. The social security lockbox bill has been held hostage for 139 days. One hundred and thirty-nine days is long enough. It is time for the other body to act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for that continuing explanation of the right of Congress to read and interpret the Constitution for itself, and not just rely on the courts. Indeed, there is nothing sacrosanct about a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has reversed itself over 100 times since our Nation's founding. At this time, batting cleanup, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) to talk about one of the more controversial issues that we face this session, the Ten Commandments posting.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that excellent discussion of the original intent of our framers regarding religious liberty and the Ten Commandments posting debate that we have had recently with the juvenile justice bill. I want to say a final thank you to all of the participating Members tonight. It has been most informative to listen to each of my colleagues as they have shared the very words of our Founding Fathers. And as we have listened to these words, it becomes crystal clear that, to the extent that the First Amendment addresses the interaction between public life and religious belief, it is this: that the only thing that the First Amendment prohibited was the Federal establishment of a national denomination. The freedom of religion, therefore, is to be protected from encroachment by the State, not the other way around. Mr. Speaker, with the words of our Founding Fathers, and they are many, from George Washington to John Adams to John Jay, Benjamin Rush, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and others cited tonight, each one of these men was fully committed to the primary role that religion played in public life and in private life, yet without the establishment of one particular denomination. So, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to consider the many policies that lie before us, from charitable choice to opportunity scholarships to attend religious schools, to governmental contracting with faith-based institutions, even to the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property, let us do so with a true intention of the framers in mind, and that intention was to allow and encourage religion, both to flourish and to inform public life, yet still without naming a particular state religion or denomination at the Federal level. That is fully possible. Instead of shutting it out and denying even the purely practical solution that it offers, let us not be afraid of the good that religion can and does bring to public life. Indeed, it is one of the reasons that we have such a great country called America.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), who happens to represent the area, I believe, of Littleton, Colorado, where the great tragedy at Columbine High School occurred. I am sure the prayers of the Nation have been with his constituents this year.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that very formative discussion of the issue of religious liberty and intent of our Founders. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, tonight several of us are again gathered here in the hall of the House in this legislative body that represents the freedom that we know and love in America to discuss what our Founding Fathers believed about the First Amendment, the freedom of religion, the issue of religious liberty, and the intersection of religion and public life. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said by people of all political ideologies about the role of religion in public life and the extent to which the two should intersect, if at all. Lately we have heard the discussion of issues like charitable choice, graduation prayers, even prayers at football games, opportunity scholarships for children to attend religious schools, government contracting with faith-based institutions, and the posting of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols on public property. As we hear this discussion, we often hear the phrase ``separation of church and state'' time and time again. Joining me tonight to examine this phrase and this issue and what our First Amendment rights entail are several Members from across this great Nation. I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), each of whom will examine the words and the intent of our Founding Fathers. I would like to begin by examining some of the words of some of our Founders and Framers of the Constitution as we look at the issue of encouraging religion. In debates in this body in recent weeks, some Members have criticized proposed measures to protect public religious expressions or to allow voluntarily participation in faith-based programs. They tell us that it is not the purpose of government to encourage religion, even if it shows preference to no particular religious faith or group. Interestingly, we hear no criticism when we encourage or cooperate with private industry or with business or any other group. Only when we cooperate with faith institutions do the critics emerge. Are the programs and endeavors of people of faith below government encouragement? Or do people of faith have some lethal virus which prohibits the government from partnering with them? Certainly not. What then is the problem? We are told that for us to encourage religion would be unconstitutional, that it would violate the Constitution so wisely devised by our Founding Fathers. This is an argument not founded in history or precedent. It is an argument of recent origin. It does not have its roots in our Constitution but rather in the criticisms of numerous revisionists who wish the Constitution said something other than what it actually does. In fact, those who wrote the Constitution thought it was proper for the government to endorse and encourage religion. As proof, consider the words of John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, and the original chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Jay declared, and I quote, ``It is the duty of all wise, free and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion.'' Chief Justice John Jay was one of America's leading interpreters of the Constitution, and he declared it is the duty of government to encourage virtue and religion. Consider next the words of Oliver Ellsworth. He was a member of the convention which framed the Constitution. He was the third chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Ellsworth declared, ``The primary objects of government are peace, order, and prosperity of society. To the promotion of these objects, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support, and among these, religious institutions are eminently useful and important.'' Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, another of American's leading interpreters of the Constitution, and one who actually helped frame the Constitution, declares that religious institutions are to be encouraged. Consider, too, the words of Henry Laurens, another member of the constitutional convention. Henry Laurens declared, ``I had the honor of being one who framed the Constitution. In order effectually to accomplish these great constitutional ends, it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage respect for God and virtue.'' Henry Laurens is a third constitutional expert, one who participated in the drafting of the Constitution and who therefore clearly knows its intent, and he declares that it is the duty of government to encourage respect for God.'' Consider also the words of Abraham Baldwin, another of the original drafters of the Constitution, one of its signers. Abraham Baldwin declared, ``A free government can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality.'' Abraham Baldwin is yet a fourth constitutional expert, a signer of the Constitution. He declares that government should encourage religion. Since the very Founders who prohibited, ``an establishment of religion'' also said that it was the duty of government to encourage religion, it is clear that they did not equate encouraging religion as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Finally, consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, placed on the Court by President James Madison. Justice Story, in his 1833 Commentaries On The Law, which today are still considered authoritative constitutional commentaries, declared this, ``The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being and attributes and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues, these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is indeed difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them.'' . Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story titled The Father of American Jurisprudence for his significant contributions to American law declares that government is not to be indifferent to religion. There are many, many other examples, and they all prove that the current arguments demanding that government not encourage religion or allow participation in faith-based programs are ill-founded. The conflict between those today who argue that the Constitution does not permit us to encourage religion, and the actual framers of the Constitution who assert that we may encourage religion is best expressed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist who declared, ``It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights to learn that the Constitution prohibits endorsing or encouraging religion. History must judge whether it was those in 1789, or those today who have strayed from the meaning of the Bill of Rights.'' Certainly, clear-thinking Americans know that those who wrote the Constitution understand its meaning better than today's critics who try to make the Constitution say something that it does not. It is time for this body to get back to upholding the actual wording of the Constitution, not some substitute wording that constitutional revisionists wish that it had said. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his very informative and timely explanation of the principles of religious freedom as regards to our courts versus the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his leadership and support on behalf of this resolution and all education reform. I just want to mention first of all, in response to the gentleman from Missouri who cited a GAO report, that he did not continue reading from the report. I have a copy of it here. Let me continue reading what he failed to read: ``After saying that collectively the States distributed 94 percent of the Federal funds they received mainly to local agencies,'' it continues, ``excluding the $7.3 billion Title I program, one of the largest elementary secondary education programs. The overall percentage of funds States allocated to local agencies by the remaining 9 programs was 86 percent.'' I could read more, but that is the quote used in the resolution. Also he mentioned the local administrators not complaining. Let me give my colleagues a quote from my school superintendent when he came to present testimony before the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He said, ``The direct funding of dollars for classroom teachers' use would put the money in the hands of the people who would make the difference in districts like ours. Who better to decide what is needed in his or her classroom than the teacher.'' Another one Dr. Linder Shingo, a superintendent from Georgia: ``Administrators from Washington will never meet the needs of individual children. I cast my vote for returning as many dollars directly to the local schools as we are able. Less bureaucracy on all levels would allow more dollars to directly reach the students in the classroom.'' In addition, one of the administrators said they do not even bother applying for the Federal funds because of the administrative requirements and the costs to them in the local level and the paperwork and the procedure necessary to apply for the Federal funds. But, Mr. Speaker, let me go ahead and say that I rise in support, strong support, of the Dollars to the Classroom resolution today, an effort on which we have been working for a couple of years to ensure that our Federal elementary and secondary education dollars get to where they belong, in the classroom of our public schools where teachers who know a child's name has some control over the money. Overall not a lot, a high percentage of our schools' funding is from the Federal Government. Most of it is State and local government funds, but about 6 to 7 percent does come from the Federal Government, and this is about in a day of tightening tax dollars the need for more efficient and effective use of our tax dollars. Currently, as I mentioned, it is estimated and depending on the programs some more some less, but it is estimated from between 65 to 86 percent of the Federal education dollars make it to the classroom for educational purposes. Regardless of the exact amount, that is not enough. It is no secret that funds designated for the education of our kids are wasted when they are not funneled down to the level where they can actually play a supportive role in classroom activities, and instead they are often funneled off by bureaucracies at all levels. The importance of this Dollars to the Classroom resolution today is that we should set a standard to reduce bureaucratic and ineffective spending. We should work to get more money into the local classroom. We should prioritize the way we spend our education tax dollars and put children first. This is about the kids. This is for them. We must get the dollars down to where they benefit, where the action is, into the classroom, and our kids deserve to be the prime beneficiaries of Federal funding. This resolution calls on Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that 95 percent of the funds are used for classroom activities and services. What could this mean for our kids? First, it would signal an important systemic shift in how Federal education dollars can be delivered to our Nation's schools. It could mean more books, more textbooks. I have had students from my district share that their textbooks are in some cases older than their teachers. In the words of an eighth grader who was here last year and who spoke, he said quote, ``Our geography books are from the 1980s. A lot has happened in the world since then. Instead of calling the books Geography Today, they should be called Geography of the World 15 years ago,'' end quote. That is a pretty astute comment for an eighth grader. More dollars to the classroom could also mean more teachers, more teacher aides. This money could be used for teachers' salaries. More dollars to the classroom could mean new computers, computer software, even microscopes so that students have new opportunities of discovery in science and physics and mathematics. It is a little-known fact that most public schoolteachers now dip into their own pockets to provide supplies for their classrooms, sometimes spending hundreds and even thousands of dollars a year. Yet, consider this fact: according to the General Accounting Office study in fiscal year 1993, Federal education dollars funded 13,397 full-time equivalent positions in State education agencies. In fiscal year 1998, the Department of Education's paperwork and data reporting requirements totaled 40 million of what they call burden hours, which is the equivalent of 19,300 people working 40 hours a week for one full year. If we are honestly going to discuss our priorities in Federal funding of elementary and secondary education, we must ask why so much funding goes to the bureaucracy instead of going right to the kids in the classroom. With the dollars to the classroom resolution, we aim to put priority back on our kids. This is a goal on which we all can agree. We should vote for the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, recognizing that local schools, not bureaucracies, are best suited to make decisions about allocating resources. They understand their students' backgrounds, their needs; they can respond to them most directly with proven methods of instructions. We should trust the parents and our teachers and our public schools to use money to meet their unique needs. Vote for the dollars to the classroom resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is never a waste of time to talk about the money spent on our kids, educating our kids in the classroom. As far as the statistics, reading from the gentleman's own report, he says that 99 percent, and I will read the same sentence, it does not say ``to the classroom,'' it says, ``distributed over 99 percent of the appropriations from the 10 programs to the States.'' It does not say ``to the classrooms.'' Now, if we read down lower on that page, page 3, it says if we exclude Title I, which is the most efficient program, and look at the other nine, we have an average of 86 percent in those nine programs. So from the gentleman's own report, and if the gentleman will look on page 10, it graphs each one as far as what is the administrative cost of the States, the States' use. If we just disregard the Federal use and look at the State agencies on page 10, only two programs meet the 5 percent or below. All the rest are above. That is just what the State administrative costs are, not the local administrative costs. Our resolution states, ``The local education agencies should work together to ensure that not less than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for the purpose of carrying out elementary and secondary education programs administered by the Department of education is spent to improve the academic achievement of our children in their classroom.'' So what we are talking about is what is really important here. That is the kids in the classroom. That is what this resolution is all about, how are we going to impact the kids' learning and give the equipment, the tools to the teachers that directly impact the children, give them the aid that directly impacts their teaching so our kids can compete in this world. That is the goal of this resolution. I urge the Members to adopt it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, sometimes it is difficult for people to tell who is being straight with them and who is being misleading or disingenuous. One way to help decide who ought to be believed and who not is to look at the record and the credibility of those making various claims. Take Social Security, for example. The record will show that the other party controlled this House for 40 years, along with its appropriations process, and not only failed to put aside one dime of the Social Security surplus; but 30 years ago they began the annual practice of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for things other than Social Security and left us with a huge Federal debt. Just a few months ago, the other party turned their backs on the President's own Commission on Social Security because bipartisan Social Security reform would take away their ability to scare seniors on the issue in the next election process. Republicans, on the other hand, have passed Social Security lockbox legislation that locks away 100 percent of Social Security taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and they have been reserving H.R. 1 even to this day for the President's proposal on Social Security reform. So in judging credibility, look at the record, not just rhetoric.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Federal red tape is strangling America's public schools. As long as the bureaucrats maintain their death grip on school districts across America, schools will struggle with their effort to get better. So when we talk about how much money we are spending on education, let us also talk about how we are spending that money. Let us stop focusing on process and start focusing on what really matters: Results. That is what Republican education reform is all about. It is about fewer layers of bureaucracy and more dollars to the classroom. It is about less red tape and more student achievement. It is about allowing parents to take their kids out of bad schools and put them into good ones. It is about putting more decisions into the hands of teachers and parents and fewer decisions in the hands of the bureaucrats. It is about giving America's children the chance for a brighter future.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Pfizer, Inc. on its 150th anniversary. As one of the global leaders in the important pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer has helped to improve the health of men and women around the world for the last century and a half. Pfizer's long history is full of adventure, daring risk-taking, and intrepid decision making. Founded by German immigrant cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles Erhart in 1849, Pfizer has grown from a small chemical firm in Brooklyn, NY to a multinational corporation which employs close to 50,000 people, including 219 men and women in its tradition of developing innovative drugs to combat a variety of illnesses. In 1944, Pfizer was the first company to successfully mass- produce penicillin, a breakthrough that led to the company's emergence as a global leader in its industry. Since then, Pfizer has marketed dozens of effective medicines designed to fight conditions like arthritis, diabetes, infections, and heart disease in humans, and infections, parasites, and heartworm in animals. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Pfizer has made innumerable contributions to our nation and our world, and I applaud Pfizer's accomplishments as it celebrates its 150th anniversary.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week the House Committee on Education and the Workforce will consider the Dollars to the Classroom resolution stating that our schoolchildren and teachers in our public schools throughout this country can benefit by directing Federal funding for elementary and secondary education directly to classrooms where the learning process actually takes place. By seeking to get 95 cents of every dollar into the classrooms of our public schools, the children and teachers of this Nation would see an additional $870 million out of the existing appropriation. That is $10,000 per school translating to about $450 for every classroom in America. By seeing that dollars actually get into the hands of those who directly teach our kids their ABCs and their 1, 2, 3s, we will get maximum efficiency out of the use of our tax dollars. As the House considers the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, let us look at how we can empower teachers at the local level. No longer do we want our seventh graders saying their books were printed when their teachers were in the eighth grade. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Dollars to the Classroom resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for that quote from the committee action as the first amendment went through its drafts. That truly is very enlightening to consider what the framers said as they did the committee debate in drafting the first amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for that excellent explanation and now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, tonight several of us are gathered here in the hall of the House in a legislative body that represents the freedom that we know and love in America to discuss what our Founding Fathers believed about the First Amendment, about the issue of religious liberty, about the freedom of religion, about the interaction of religion in public life. We are talking tonight about the First Amendment, not the Second Amendment, not the Tenth Amendment, the 16th, not the 26th, the First Amendment, without which our Constitution would not have been ratified. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said by people of all political stripes and ideologies about the role of religion in public life and the extent to which the two should intersect, if at all. Lately, with the increased discussion of issues like opportunity scholarships for children to attend religious educational institutions, about Government contracting with faith-based institutions, and even about the debate on the Ten Commandments being posted on public property, we have heard the phrase ``separation of church and state'' time and time again. Joining me tonight to examine this phrase, as well as the issue of public religious expression and what our First Amendment rights entail, are several Members from across this great Nation. I am pleased to be joined tonight by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Each of these Members will examine the words and the intent of our Founding Fathers. I would like to begin by examining the words and works of one of our most quoted Founders, Thomas Jefferson, who actually coined the phrase ``separation of church and state'' but in a way much different than what present day lore seems to suggest. ``Separation of church and state'' is the phrase which today seems to guide the debates in this chamber over public religious expressions. While Thomas Jefferson popularized that phrase, most of those who so quickly invoke Thomas Jefferson and his phrase seem to know almost nothing of the circumstances which led to his use of that phrase or even of Jefferson's own meaning for the phrase ``separation of church and state.'' Interestingly enough, the same Members in this chamber who have been using Jefferson's phrase to oppose the constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion have also been complaining that this body should do more with education, and I am starting to agree with them. Those who use this phrase certainly do need some more education about the origin and the meaning of this phrase. The phrase ``separation of church and state'' appeared in an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The election of President Jefferson, America's first anti-Federalist President, elated many Baptists of that day since that denomination was, by and large, strongly anti-Federalist. From the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the Federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power. And now having a President who advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson on November 7, 1801, congratulating him but also expressing their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment. That the Constitution even contained a guarantee for the free exercise of religion suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right to religious expression had become a government-given rather than a God-given, or inalienable right. They feared that the Government might some day believe that it had constitutional authority to regulate the free exercise of religion. Jefferson understood their concern. It was also his own. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the only thing the First Amendment prohibited was the Federal establishment of a national denomination. He explained this to fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush, telling him: ``The Constitution secured the freedom of religion. The clergy had a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States, especially the Episcopalians and the Congregationalists. Our countrymen believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to these schemes. And they believe rightly.'' Jefferson committed himself as President to pursuing what he believed to be the purpose of the First Amendment, not allowing any denomination to become the Federal or national religion, as had been the case in Britain and France and Italy and other nations of that day. In fact, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, 8 of the 13 colonies had state churches. But Jefferson had no intention of allowing the Federal Government to limit, to restrict, to regulate, or to interfere with public religious practices. Therefore, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear, the free exercise of religion will never be interfered with by the Federal Government. He explained: ``Believing with you that man owes account to none other for his faith or his worship than to God, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Federal legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state.'' Jefferson's understanding of the wall of separation between church and state was that it would keep the Federal Government from inhibiting religious expression. This is a fact he repeated in numerous other declarations during his presidency. For example, in his second inaugural address, he said: ``In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the Federal Government.'' In a letter to Judge Samuel Miller, Jefferson wrote: ``I consider the Federal Government as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious exercises.'' Jefferson's phrase on ``separation of church and state'' was used to declare his dual conviction that the Federal Government should neither establish a national denomination nor hinder its free exercise of religion. Yet, is it not interesting that today the Federal Government, specifically the Federal courts, now use Jefferson's ``separation'' phrase for a purpose exactly opposite of what he intended? They now use his phrase to prohibit the free exercise of religion, whether by students who want to express their faith, or by judges who want to show their belief in the Ten Commandments, or by cemeteries who wish to display a cross, or by so many other public religious expressions. Jefferson's phrase that so long meant that the Federal Government would not prohibit public religious expressions or activities is now used to do exactly the opposite of what Jefferson intended. Rather than freedom of religion, they now want freedom from religion. Ironic, is it not? Earlier generations long understood Jefferson's intent for this phrase. And unlike today's courts, which only published Jefferson's eight-word ``separation'' phrase and earlier courts published Jefferson's full letter, if Jefferson's separation phrase is to be used today, let its context be clearly given as in previous years. Additionally, earlier generations always viewed Jefferson's ``separation'' phrase as no more than it actually was, a line from a personal, private letter written to a specific constituent group. There is probably no other instance in American history where eight words spoken by a single individual in a private letter, words now clearly divorced from their context, have become the sole basis for a national policy. One further note should be made about the First Amendment and the ``separation of church and state'' phrase. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, in the 1st Congress record the months of discussions and the entire official debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. And by the way, contrary to popular misconception, Jefferson was not one of those who framed the First Amendment, nor its religion clause. He was not even in America at the time. He was serving overseas as an American diplomat and did not arrive back in America to become George Washington's Secretary of State until the month after the Bill of Rights was completed. Nonetheless, when examining the records, during the congressional debates of those who actually were here and who actually did frame the First Amendment, not one single one of the 90 framers of the Constitution's religion clause ever mentioned the phrase ``separation of church and state.'' If this had been their intent for the First Amendment, as is so frequently asserted today, then at least one of those 90 would have mentioned that phrase. Not one did. Today the phrase ``separation of church and state'' is used to accomplish something the author of the phrase never intended. That phrase found nowhere in the Constitution is now used to prohibit what is actually guaranteed by the Constitution, the free exercise of religion. It is time to go back to what the Constitution actually says rather than to what some opponents of religion wish that it said. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. PITTS. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for highlighting the magnitude, the nature of the problem in this country. As he mentioned, the court case in Pennsylvania, I remember very well a few years ago. It was in the Supreme Court chamber where this lawyer, referred to a painting which was behind the justices on the wall, a painting of the Ten Commandments and he said, ``As the Bible says, `Thou shall not kill' '' and then he went on with his arguments. And for making that statement, that conviction of that murderer who murdered that elderly person was overturned. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his very informative comments and for reminding us of the quotes from our founders, Washington, Franklin and others. I want to say a final thank you to all the participating Members tonight. It has been a real inspiration to listen to each one of the Members as they shared the very words of our founding documents and our Founding Fathers regarding the First Amendment. As we have listened to these words, it becomes crystal clear that, to the extent that the First Amendment addresses the interaction between public life and religious belief, it is this: That the only thing the First Amendment prohibited was the Federal establishment of a national denomination. The freedom of religion, therefore, is to be protected from encroachment by the state, by the government, not the other way around. Mr. Speaker, the words of our founding fathers are many, from Washington, to Franklin, to Madison, to Jefferson and others. Each one of these men was fully committed to the primary role that religion played in public life and in private life, yet without the establishment of one particular denomination. So, my friends, as we continue to consider the many policies that lie before us, like Charitable Choice, like Opportunity Scholarships for children who go to religious schools, like government contracting with faith-based institutions, even the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property, let us do so with the true intention of the framers in mind. That intention was to allow religion both to flourish and to inform public life, yet still without naming a particular national or Federal religion or denomination. That is fully possible. Instead of shutting it out and denying even the purely practical solution that it offers, let us not be afraid of the good that religion can and does bring to public life. Indeed, it has helped to build a great Nation.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill that brings justice against a criminal for harm done to two victims, not just one. Both lives are precious. Both lives deserve protection. Many States do already recognize unborn children as victims of such crimes. For instance, my home State of Pennsylvania, like more than 20 others, does have such a law. It is called the Fetal Homicide law. This law, I might add, receives support from both pro-choice and pro-life legislators. Why, then, can we not take what are protections in many of our States to protections in Federal crimes? The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was designed to address a flaw in our law which says right now that there is no punishment for the injury or harm to an unborn child during a Federal crime. Should we ignore the violence that women and their unborn children undergo from violent criminals, characterizing the injury or even death of the child as ``an interruption in the normal course of pregnancy''? I submit that it is much more than that. If such a Federal law were in place, we could punish some of these criminals for their terrible actions and incidents ranging from the tragic story of the woman in Arkansas whose near-term infant was beaten to death inside her body to incidents with which we are all familiar where pregnant women and their unborn children are killed, like the bombing of the World Trade Center or even the Oklahoma City bombing. Do not let such criminals go unpunished for the lives they have devastated and ruined. Let us make those criminals pay for the lives they seek to destroy and, in many cases, successfully do so. This bill is not about abortion or abortion politics, as the opponents have alleged. It is about providing justice for both victims in the crime. Vote for the Unborn Victims Violence Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Planned Parenthood research arm, over 10,000 women in the United States begin to deal with an unplanned pregnancy every day. Mr. Speaker, thousands of small crisis pregnancy centers, maternity homes and adoption services are available to these women in crisis, but often women do not know that they have such choices. That is why the Women and Children's Resources Act, a bill that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) and I introduced last week, is so important. The Women and Children's Resources Act would provide a fee-for- service program for providing services to women like pregnancy tests, maternity home stays, baby clothes, prenatal and post-partum health care, even adoption services and referrals for vocational training and health care. This solution-based bill builds a bridge between pro-life and pro- choice to offer compassionate solutions to women on common ground. If today's women need choices, we must offer them real choices. Many women would choose not to have an abortion if only they knew that other options were available to them. I urge my colleagues to make this a reality. Support and cosponsor the Women and Children's Resources Act.