Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, with the stroke of a pen yesterday President Clinton has thrown away a good Washington, D.C. appropriations bill. What has he thrown away? Good and needed things like helping D.C. kids go to college, placing foster kids into permanent homes, cleaning up the foul Anacostia River, cracking down on drug offenders, and reducing the size of D.C.'s bloated government. And for what? For legalizing marijuana. The President drew a line in the sand that said he would not sign a bill that did not legalize marijuana. Nobody should be fooled by the pretense that this is a medical issue. That is a smoke screen. A war on drugs will never happen when the President's priority is to veto a bill over legalizing drugs in our Nation's capital. The President is sending the worst possible message to our children. Every police officer, every teacher, every parent who has ever fought against drugs should be outraged by this veto.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot lately about campaign finance reform. However, some of those pushing for new laws fail to mention the fact that our existing laws have been broken. It is against the law to use foreign money in election campaigns in America. It is against the law to launder money in election campaigns. It is against the law to sell access to your office or influence or even seats on a foreign trade mission to highest bidders. It is against the law to use public offices, telephones, equipment, staff, computers in election campaigns. We have heard about ``no controlling legal authority.'' The Attorney General not only fails to enforce our existing laws on campaign finance reform, but the Attorney General blocks efforts to investigate existing laws. We should have full disclosure, but we should also have our existing laws enforced. It is a scam on the American people to pass new laws on finance reform, while not enforcing existing laws.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Dollars to the Classroom Resolution, to benefit schoolchildren and teachers all across this country, by calling on education agencies at all levels to get 95 percent of federal education dollars into the classrooms of this country. A similar resolution passed the House 310-99 in the 105th Congress. Further, the Dollars to the Classroom Act language to codify the principles in the resolution also passed the House in the 105th Congress. I have been working on this legislation because I believe in the importance of doing all that we can to improve the academic achievement of our public school children. How is this accomplished? We believe that empowering the teachers and bolstering the classroom resources of our kids directly improves their learning process. When we think of our childrens' efforts to learn, we often think of the tools that go into forming and shaping their young minds: tools like books, globes, computers . . . and things like flash cards, spelling tests, and calculators. We do not think of bureaucratic programs and stacks of paperwork. Yet, many of our federal dollars that go to elementary and secondary education do not reach our kids. That's why Dollars to the Classroom is so important. This is a simple concept. Instead of keeping education dollars here in Washington, let's ensure that 95 cents on every federal dollar is sent directly to parents, teachers, and principals who are truly helping our children in the learning process. Passage of the Dollars to the Resolution, followed by the Dollars to the Classroom Act would mean millions in new dollars for schoolchildren across the country. This is the next common sense step in our efforts to improve public education for the students of the next millennium.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is the practice in our Nation that victims of crime and their families be consulted before criminals who have perpetrated the crimes against them are released from prison. Well, it just so happens that the victims of the FALN terrorist attacks were never even consulted; they were never even notified that these terrorists were about to be set free from prison, another injustice against the American people and victims of crime by our President. Yet, the Clinton-Gore Administration took months talking to the terrorists and their representatives as they made their decision. We know that the First Lady was consulted. She first agreed, and then she said she changed her mind. We are told that the Vice President is consulted about everything. I wonder what his response or his role was in granting the terrorists their freedom. Why were not 139 bombings, 6 people killed, dozens maimed enough to keep terrorists off of our streets? The American people and the victims of crime deserve answers to these questions, not silence through executive privilege.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week the President of the United States released the FALN terrorists from prison onto the streets. These terrorists committed heinous crimes and were convicted of robbery, sedition, and conspiracy. We even have pictures of them actually making bombs. The President somehow trusts these terrorists that they will now do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the American taxpayers deciding for themselves how to spend their own money, the President does not trust them. The President prefers to continue letting the bureaucracy in Washington dictate how Americans' hard-earned money is spent. This is what President Clinton said earlier this year: ``So the question is, what do we do with the surplus? We could give it all back and hope you spend it right.'' How about that? The President can only hope the American people would do the right thing. That is outrageous, Mr. Speaker. The President trusts FALN terrorists. He trusts the federal bureaucracy here in Washington. But he does not trust the American people with their own money. What is next? The Unabomber on the street?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce a bill that is about solutions. About solutions for women in need. It's called the Women and Children's Resources Act and it is truly seeking to improve women's health and offer a woman compassionate choices when she finds herself facing an unplanned pregnancy. This is legislation that can frankly bring pro-life and pro-choice together to offer real solutions to women--on common ground. If today's women need choices we must offer them real choices. We must offer them compassion. To truly respect women and to respect the value and uniqueness of all human life--both mother and child--we need to meet their needs in a holistic way. This is the essence of caring for women. We all rejoice when we hear that the abortion rate is dropping in America. We rejoice because we know that it is due in part to the compassionate services and alternatives that are being offered to today's women. Indeed, as Frederica Mathewes-Green has said so well, many women would choose not to have an abortion if only they knew that other options were available to them. Alternatives like adoption services, maternity home stays, crisis pregnancy centers, caring extended church families and religious communities, even para-church organizations. I'm pleased to have representatives from some of these organizations here today. It is each of you who provide the time-intensive, long- term, compassionate assistance to women--women who may be scared, poor, lonely, even confused. Thank you. The Women and Children's Resources Act takes a successful model--the Pennsylvania model--and expands it for all 50 states. In Pennsylvania, because of a fee-for-service funding stream that goes directly to crisis pregnancy centers, maternity homes, and adoption services, small organizations that meet these needs are helping hundreds more women than they would have been able to otherwise. At the federal level, the 85 million dollar grant that would be set up through the Women and Children's Resources Act will provide a helping hand to such organizations all over the United States-- organizations meeting essential needs of women, through: Testing for pregnancy; follow-up services; prenatal and postpartum health care; health and nutritional needs of pregnant and postpartum women; and essential information on childbirth, parenting, and pregnancy during adolescence. For thousands of women, unfortunately, unplanned pregnancy is a reality. We are here today because we care about women in these situations. Even as funding for Title X continues to grow, small organizations like crisis pregnancy centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies rely almost solely on contributions from concerned citizens just to keep their shoe-string budgets afloat. Mother Teresa showed us that the most important thing we can do is to meet the needs of those in our midst, those on our street corner, those in our cities and towns, those who come to us for help. The Women and Children's Resources Act empowers those who are making a tangible difference in the lives of women facing an unplanned pregnancy. This is a critical part of offering choices. And this is the very essence of compassion. And this is something on which pro-choice and pro-life people can agree: that women facing crisis pregnancies need compassionate assistance.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an excellent FY 2000 Defense Authorization Conference Report, and I thank the conferees in the House and Senate for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. With rapidly growing threats worldwide to our national security, we must begin to rebuild our military from years of decimation and escalating deployments. Mr. Speaker, this authorization responds to these concerns. As a former navigator of a B-52 bomber in the Air Force and a Vietnam veteran, I am particularly excited about the upgrades and procurement of Air Force and Navy aircraft, especially for the EA-6B Prowler--our military's only radar support jammer for all the services, including joint air operations. Further, the pilot retention reforms contained in the Authorization, including enlistment bonus and special pay reform, are essential. We have the best Air Force in the world--no country comes close. Yet we have trouble holding on to the best pilots because we simply do not take care of them. We frequently ask our men and women in the military to leave their families, fight for our national security, and even die for our freedom and liberty. Yet, we do not provide our service personnel with the pay or equipment it takes to get the job done right. It is appalling that even one of these families must seek welfare just to put food on the table and buy clothes for their children. I honestly believe that the authorization we have before us today will go a long way in correcting this problem. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report, which will prove a boon to the dedicated soldiers in our armed services.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have the BEST agenda, BEST. B stands for bolster our national security, E for excellence in education, S for strengthen social security and Medicare, and T for tax relief. Republicans have the BEST agenda. By contrast, one could conclude that Democrats have the WORST agenda, WORST. W stands for wasteful Washington spending, O for outrageous overregulation, R for raising taxes, S for socializing medicine, and T for trashing our defense. Alas, Democrats indeed have the WORST agenda. I invite all fair- minded listeners to judge for themselves. The choices are clear. I urge all Members to vote for the BEST agenda.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a few thoughts on the President and our tax relief bill. If we listen to what the President has been saying, we will see that he has actually been making the case for this tax relief bill for months. The President says he supports seniors. So do we. That is why the Republican tax relief plan walls off and locks away Social Security trust fund monies for America's seniors. The President says he supports America's farmers and ranchers. So do we. That is why the Republican tax relief bill eliminates the death tax for farmers and for small businesses so that they can pass the family farm or business on to the next generation. The President says he supports working families. So do we. That is why the Republican tax relief plan reduces the marriage penalty tax. The President says he is for reducing the Federal debt. So are we. That is why the tax relief bill pays down $2.2 trillion of the public debt. It also encourages savings and investments with other targeted tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to listen to his own rhetoric, to join the cause in reducing the tax burden, the national debt, on all working Americans. Next year is an election year. Mr. President, this is the year for your opportunity to do something with bipartisan support.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, is the Netherlands really ready for killing sick children? That is the question currently pending in Holland as they consider a bill that would allow the killing of six children as young as 12 years old if they are terminally ill. A spokeswoman for the Royal Dutch Medical Association said: ``The doctor will do his utmost to try to reach an agreement between patient and parents, but if the parents do not want to cooperate, it is the doctor's duty to respect the wishes of their patient.'' So much for the Hippocratic Oath for a civilized medical institution. This situation in Netherlands gives us all the more reason to work to pass the Pain Relief Promotion Act, which disallows the intentional use of controlled substances to cause or assist in suicide. At the same time it recognizes that using controlled substances to alleviate pain and discomfort in the usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical purpose and consistent with public health and safety. Mr. Speaker, we never want to see a day when our young kids or elderly parents legally and intentionally die at the hands of a so- called doctor. Support the Pain Relief Promotion Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I too am deeply disturbed by the horrifying human rights violations currently taking place in Indonesia in East Timor. The kidnappings, the killings, the forced evacuations absolutely should not be happening. The horrific beheadings, with severed human heads being paraded around on sticks, is barbaric. The government of Indonesia imposed martial law on the country to control the violence that erupted after the East Timorese voted for independence. Unfortunately, reliable reports suggest that Indonesian military officials are actually involved in orchestrating the unrest and violence that is occurring right now. Madam Speaker, I call on President Habibie and the other Indonesian officials to accept the results of the referendum, get control of their military and bring an immediate end to the horrifying bloodshed and violence that is terrorizing the people.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Strategy Act. I commend my colleague, Mr. Bereuter, for championing this important legislation that will greatly benefit countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The Silk Road Strategy Act is a proactive policy of engagement, which authorizes U.S. assistance to support the economic and political independence of Kazakhstan, Krygyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, after decades of Communist rule, these countries have faced a tough road toward economic development and prosperity, and the cultivation of a democratic society. With this in mind, the U.S. must actively engage this region to ensure a peaceful post-Soviet era, and to protect our national security. Since being elected to Congress in 1996, I have worked hard to build bridges between the U.S. and Central Asia and the Caucasus. Through regular meetings with Ambassadors from this region and travel to Central Asia, I am keenly aware of the necessity of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the Great Silk Road, which in ancient times joined the East with the West, by means of trade, cultural-humanitarian, political and economic ties, has a history stretching back several thousand years. The Great Silk Road played the role of a connecting bridge between countries and civilizations. It served as a channel for trade, which became the catalyst for the development of crafts and the active exchange of philosophies and cultures. The spirit of the Great Silk Road is what this bill before us today is about--a new Silk Road-- connecting Central Asia and the Caucasus with the United States, in an effort to encourage economic, cultural, and political exchange between our countries. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and look forward to continuing working with Central Asia and Caucasus states to build prosperous market-oriented economies in the former Soviet Union. Again, I thank my colleague, Mr. Bereuter, for sponsoring this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the Silk Road Strategy Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, how is it that creating new spending programs will not blow a hole in the deficit, but tax cuts will? Liberals accuse Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility for passing tax relief, and yet they call us extremist in every single attempt we make to hold the line on spending. During the 1980s, in the Reagan years liberals insisted that social spending not be cut. Not only that, they insisted that spending on social programs increase at levels far higher than the rate of inflation. Then they turned around and blamed President Reagan for the deficits. During the 1980s, tax rates were cut but tax revenues doubled. Members heard that right, tax rates were reduced but the economy boomed so strongly that revenues increased. In fact, they doubled. Yet, liberal Democrats blamed the deficits on the tax cuts. It is the same old line. The left just hates tax cuts, plain and simple.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, the country of Morocco has been in the news a lot the last couple of weeks. This morning, I rise on behalf of 83 freed Moroccan POWs in the midst of the Sahara Desert. These men were originally imprisoned due to the conflict between Western Saraha and Morocco. These prisoners were released in 1997 by Western Sahara as a goodwill gesture when former Secretary of State George Baker, who was the emissary of the UN Secretary General, visited the Sahrawi people in their refugee camps. Eighty-five prisoners were released and filled with anticipation of going home. Unfortunately, two of the men have died while waiting for permission from their government to visit Morocco. Last year I visited these released POWs in their camp. You can see these men in the photo around me. Madam Speaker, some of these men have languished, along with the Sahrawi refugees, in the desert for 20 years. Yet, even though they are free, Morocco has not allowed them to return home to Morocco to their families. Why? No one knows. Madam Speaker, I urge the new King of Morocco as a gesture of good will to accept the freed Moroccan citizens so they can return home to their families.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last year, the President vetoed the Education Savings Accounts bill that passed both Houses of Congress. The American people have clear evidence of what Republicans have been saying for years now. The Republican Party is the party of reform. The other party is the party that will defend the education special interests at any price. One party introduces real reforms with proven results. The other party talks a great game. But when it comes to reform, well, talk is about as far as it goes. If it is a choice between reform and the status quo, they pick the status quo every time. Offering parents who desire nothing more than to send their children to a good school or at least to a better school is what this is about. Offering parents tax-free savings accounts that can be used for extra tutoring, special education needs, supplementary education materials, or a school in a better part of town is what this legislation is all about. I urge both Democrats and Republicans who think that these are worthwhile goals to help parents do what is best for their kids. Support our tax bill which includes education savings accounts.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the House to pass my child survival protection amendment to the foreign ops appropriations bill. This amendment is simple, it is rational, and it represents taxpayer honesty. It is one that many on both sides of the aisle can vote for. Simply, it puts a firewall around child survival funding, stating that child survival funds should be used for child survival, to save lives of children, and not be used for population control. This is merely honesty in budgeting, honesty in appropriations. Money appropriated for child survival should be used for child survival. Money appropriated for population control should be used for population control. Many of my colleagues might not be familiar with the child survival program. Let me take a few minutes to give some background. In developing countries, more than 12 million children under the age of 5 die each year of easily preventable diseases. This is the equivalent of half of the children under 5 in America dying in a single year. It is an enormous number of children. It is tragic. The child survival funds in the foreign ops bill were created to help these children live long enough to celebrate even their fifth birthday. Children in developing countries die every day of illnesses that would never be fatal to our children here in America, things like dehydration, measles, pneumonia, malaria, respiratory infections. Our children do not die of these things because we have access to medicines, immunizations, and clean water. But poor mothers around the world are often helpless to provide this care for their children, and that is why child survival funding is absolutely essential. Just take a look at this chart, which details the simple ways that child survival funds can literally save millions of lives of the most helpless people around the world, the children. First, seven cents. That is all it costs for oral rehydration salts that can save a child from dying of dehydration that has dysentery. Nearly 2 million children die of that a year. Fifteen dollars provides a child with immunization against six major childhood diseases. Two million more children die of those around the world. Six cents can provide three vitamin A capsules to save a child from going blind. One hundred million children suffer from this deficiency. Fifteen dollars, a bed net, protects a child from malaria. More than a million children a year die from malaria. Twenty-five cents could provide proper antibiotics to treat pneumonia. Two million children die of that. One dollar and seventy cents improves sanitation to prevent water- borne diseases. Three million children die from that. I think my colleagues can see what common sense some of these solutions are that have the potential for tremendous impact. What this chart also shows is that the current amount of funds appropriated for these treatments in child survival, $215 million, is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of dying children around the world. Mr. Chairman, that is why every dollar we are currently designating for child survival must go directly for that, child survival. There are reports that child survival funds have been used to promote population control. Mr. Chairman, this robs children of live saving treatments. Simply stated, this amendment seeks to prevent that from happening. It ensures that child survival funding is used for child survival. We already have $385 million for population control which can be used for family planning purposes. Child survival funds should and must be used for the purpose for which they are appropriated. It is a simple amendment, it is taxpayer honesty, but in a very real sense it is a life and death issue for millions of children around the globe. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support the child survival protection amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Mr. Chairman, this discussion is not about birth spacing. However, I have made an exception for breast feeding programs in this amendment, an exception that probably was not necessary. But I want to make it clear that since breast feeding programs are designed to improve nutrition and health of children and incidentally have an effect in birth spacing, these programs do not apply as programs designed to control fertility or reduce or delay pregnancies. So children are given proper nutrition and births are spaced as a by-product. Just to remind my colleague, any other population control effort can be funded out of the $385 million provided. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has $385 million to do that. We are not cutting family planning. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). If all else fails, look to the evidence in a place where such a policy has already been attempted. Let us look at the Vancouver experiment. The Vancouver needle exchange program is one of the largest in the world, distributing 2\1/2\ million needles in the last year alone. Well, instead of decreasing the rate of HIV and AIDS in Vancouver, the HIV rate among needle exchange participants is even higher than the rate among injecting drug users who do not participate. How can that be called successful? And we want to emulate that here? The death rate due to illegal drugs in Vancouver has also skyrocketed since the program began, and the highest rates of poverty crime in Vancouver are within two blocks of the needle exchange. At the very least, the available scientific studies in no way conclude that a program which enables drug users can simultaneously seek to end their destructive habit and help them to stop shooting up. In fact, it looks as though the opposite is true. In the words of the drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, we owe our children, and that includes the children of D.C., an unambiguous no-use message, end quote. We must offer users a way out, not another crutch. In our Nation's capital, Washington, D.C., let us not send a mixed message to our Nation's youth for illegal drug use.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, the Mexico City Smith amendment has changed drastically over the years. All it does now is it prevents subsidizing lobbying activities in foreign countries. It is called the Foreign Families Protection Amendment. As millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flow to developing nations for the purpose of population control, it is critical that we refrain from paternalistically injecting our own penchant for abortions into these Nations. With the degree that we in this Nation disagree on the subject of abortion, it is not, at the very least, appropriate that we refrain from providing U.S. taxpayer funds to organizations that lobby for abortions overseas. Where are the multiculturalists now who suggest that we respect developing cultures when their beliefs do not agree with ours? Apparently, if these beliefs are not pro-abortion, that creed holds no meaning. Mr. Chairman, United States taxpayers who hold such conflicting views on abortion should absolutely not be forced to subsidize those lobbying activities. Support the Smith amendment.