Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that the Chinese Government is in desperate need of reform. Everyone agrees they violate human rights. Its leaders imprison dissidents, muzzle free speech, raid house church meetings, force women to have abortions, and outlaw opposition political parties. However, according to humanitarian workers in China, revoking normal trade relations would be counterproductive. They have told me that revoking NTR would strengthen the Chinese regime and actually intensify these human rights abuses. We should listen to these people, many of whom have committed their lives to service in China. They know the language, they know the culture, and they know the mentality. And I wish to share a couple of comments from them with my colleagues. Reverend Daniel Su, a member of a Christian house church in China says, ``To revoke China's NTR status as a way to better its human rights performance is like setting your car on fire when it stalls.'' I have many quotes which I will not have time to say here, but listen to this quote of a letter signed by 32 Christian groups working in China. ``NTR is the core of America's engagement policy toward China. Taking it away will hurt the Chinese people, particularly those who are persecuted because of their religious faith. When U.S.-China relationships deteriorate, Christians in China will be blamed and penalized.'' Mr. Speaker, let us listen to these people who have a deep, longstanding involvement in China. They are working in China because they love the Chinese people and believe that revoking NTR will hurt those that we are seeking to help. I believe it is more effective for the U.S. to address our human rights abuses through the diplomatic perspective. Support NTR.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget proposal contains three important provisions, some of which our friends on the other side appear to be ignoring. First, it contains a Social Security and Medicare lockbox requirement which locks away 100 percent, every dime of the money collected from FICA taxes and requires that it all goes towards Social Security, Medicare. Secondly, it provides for substantial debt reduction. Debt held by the public would be reduced by over $2 trillion over the next 10 years. And third, it provides for tax relief they are debating. Social Security and Medicare, debt reduction, and tax relief. Those are the three cornerstones of our budget proposal. It seems that Social Security and Medicare and debt reduction are being forgotten in all of the debate about tax relief. But to ignore our plan to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, to ignore the $2 trillion in debt reduction that our plan calls for simply does not do it justice. Our plan is fair, balanced, and responsible. It protects seniors, begins paying down the national debt, and gives taxpayers a break.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, George Washington, the Father of our Country, spoke constantly about the importance of the American character. Indeed, his farewell address to the Nation focused on just that issue. George Washington wanted to leave behind a people that believed in the experiment of self-government that existed nowhere else in the world, and he believed that the American experiment in self-government could easily slide into tyranny if Americans were not jealous of their liberties and ever vigilant against abuses of government power. Our Nation was born in rebellion, after all, against taxes which people thought were unjust, and tax revolts have been a part of our history from the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 to Proposition 13 in California in 1978. In recent years, more and more of my liberal friends have taken to labeling calls for lower taxes as greed and irresponsible. But to Republicans, government taxation is a freedom issue. The question, the critical question, is who decides what to do with the fruits of people's labor, our government masters or the people who labor to produce them? Constituents, it is your money, not Washington's. Return it before they spend it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, just listen to this quote taken from the Washington Post recently, ``It's not our responsibility to legislate anymore. It doesn't make sense for us to compromise.'' End quote. It does not make sense for us to compromise. These words come from a leader of the Democratic Party, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). It appears that the gentleman from Massachusetts has let the cat out of the bag. The Democrats have no intention of working with the Republican majority. Their strategy is to block all legislative efforts and then turn around and blame Republicans, attacking the do-nothing Congress. Will the fair and balanced media help them in that effort? Will they attack Republicans for Republican extremism, a charge we have heard from the other side thousands of times since 1995 when Republicans took over the majority in Congress? Once again, will the media help them fix this image in the public's mind?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Smith-Barcia amendment and to oppose the Campbell amendment. This amendment prevents U.S. funding for China's deplorable population control program which includes coercion, forced abortion and forced sterilization for both Chinese men and women. Women all over China are victimized daily due to their desire to bear children. Let me share with Members a few of the methods used in China's so-called family planning policy that are a matter of record: Arresting pregnant women and taking them to abortion clinics tied up or in handcuffs; incarcerating pregnant women in barracks until they acquiesce to abortions and/or sterilizations; forcing pregnant women to attend ``study sessions'' away from their families until they agree to have abortions; carrying out sterilization or abortion without the consent or knowledge of the women while rendering other medical services; crushing the skulls of babies with forceps during delivery or injecting iodine, alcohol or formaldehyde into the soft spots of their tiny heads as they are crowning so that they are born dead; imprisoning husbands until their wives submit to child-killing procedures; cutting off food, electricity, water and wages for couples who refuse to comply with the Chinese government's barbaric policies; confiscating the furniture, livestock and even homes of families who refuse to comply; finally, demolishing the homes of those who refuse to comply, as reportedly occurred in two Catholic villages in the Hepel province. When Steven Mosher wrote from his research in China, he said this: From Sandhead Brigade there were 18 women, all 5 to 9 months pregnant, and many red-eyed from lack of sleep and crying. They sat listlessly on short plank benches arranged in a semicircle about the front of the room, where He Kaifeng, a commune cadre and Communist Party member, explained the purpose of the meeting. He said slowly and deliberately, ``None of you has any choice in this matter. The two of you who are 8 or 9 months pregnant will have a caesarean; the rest of you will have a shot which will cause you to abort.'' In order to return home to their families, the women had to agree to abort their babies no matter how far along their pregnancies were. This is not family planning. These are outright human rights abuses. I do not believe that this is a pro-life or a pro-choice issue. It is a human issue. It is a woman's issue. It is a family issue. This is an issue of blatant government abuse and the United States taxpayers should not in any way be a part of it. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, we should agree that China's so-called family planning techniques are inhumane. Their slogan is, this is what China uses to market their campaigns, ``Better to have more graves than more than one child.'' Mr. Chairman, we cannot stand by claiming that we see no evil, hear no evil as the UNFPA assists the China program, holding it up as an excellent example for other countries. Until the UNFPA stops aiding in the abuse of women in China, we should not fund it. I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Barcia amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLauro amendment. This amendment has been offered, and defeated, for the last 4 years. But our pro-choice colleagues are at it again, trying to force taxpayers to fund abortion. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, and I quote, ``Only 23 percent of those polled said the national health care plan should cover abortions, while 72 percent said that those costs should be paid for directly by the women who have them.'' When an ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans if they agree or disagree with this statement, ``The Federal Government should pay for an abortion for any woman who wants it and cannot afford to pay,'' 69 percent disagreed. The Center for Gender Equality has reported that 53 percent of women favor banning abortion except for rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions. The pro-life language in the bill that the gentlewoman from Connecticut seeks to gut includes these exceptions. Obviously, if 53 percent of women favor banning abortion aside from these exceptions, then they would not want their tax dollars paying for abortion-on- demand as this amendment intends. In a Gallup poll from May of this year, 71 percent of Americans supported some or total restrictions on abortion. Do these citizens want their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortion for any reason, as the DeLauro amendment calls for? Mr. Chairman, I ask, should taxpayers, our constituents, be forced to underwrite the cost of abortions for Federal employees? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment. This amendment is common sense. It is not a threat to any contraceptive coverage. What it does is expand the choices of women and health providers. All this amendment does is add two simple things to the current conscience clause in the contraceptive mandate. Number one, it expands the conscience protection to plans which object on moral not just religious grounds. Religion is not the only reason one would object to abortion, and this should be accounted for. Number two, it expands the conscience protection not only to those who prescribe medication as in current law but also to those who provide for the abortifacient drug. All this means is that a nurse who does not prescribe but might be asked to administer an abortifacient drug has a right to refuse if it goes against her conscience. Conscience clauses are common both in Federal and State law. They are based on respect for individual freedom and on individual beliefs. Forcing someone to engage in activity that violates his or her deeply and conscientiously held beliefs is a violation of human rights. It is a gross abuse of the power of government. We have similar moral and religious provisions in conscience clauses in medical education programs, in the Medicaid managed care organizations law, in the Legal Services Corporation law. By mandating coverage of contraception and abortifacients by health plans, Congress has increased the pressure on individual physicians, nurses and pharmacists providing services under these plans to violate their own consciences. In fact, currently only those who may be asked to prescribe the drug have any conscience protection under the law, and unless they are familiar with it, they may not even know of their right to refuse. If the contraceptive abortifacient mandate in this bill were imposed on all plans, the president of a business who objects or whose employees object to covering abortifacients would not be able to work with an insurance carrier to design a plan that reflects those convictions. The plan would have to cover them, and the business owner and the employees would have to pay for them. No one should be forced to do what he or she believes would cause the death of an innocent human being, particularly in the name of health care. Mr. Chairman, this is a rational, common-sense reform. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the consciences of all those in the medical profession and American women. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the APA has done it again. An article published in the current journal of the American Psychology Association reports that the presence of fathers in families is ``not essential'' and that fathers actually ``may be detrimental to the child and the mother.'' Can you believe this absurdity? Dads are dangerous. So I say to dads, do not bother about running home to play ball or read with your child. According to these psychologists, you will not be missed. This report is on the heels of the national outrage the APA caused when they published another report stating sexual abuse does not harm children. First, praising pedophilia, now dumbing down dads. Mr. Speaker, two decades of research support the fact that children who are raised without fathers are at greater risk than children raised with fathers and mothers. In fact, studies of over 25,000 children found that kids who grow up without a father are twice as likely to drop out of school, they are two and a half times as likely to become teen moms, and also the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles. These studies and hundreds of others uphold that dads do make a difference. When will the APA ever learn?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week The Washington Post reported a startling admission. One of the leaders of the liberal wing of the Democratic party stated point blank that Democrats have no intention of working with Republicans this year on anything. In fact, they would rather play politics with seniors, with children, with working families than pass legislation to help America stay strong and prosperous. Listen to this quote given by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a hero to liberals everywhere. ``It is not our responsibility to legislate anymore. It doesn't make sense for us to compromise.'' I certainly do appreciate the gentleman's candor, but let us think about this idea that it does not make sense for us to compromise. What he means is that it does not make political sense for Democrats to compromise. They want to block Republican bills, then turn around and blame extremist Republicans for failing to pass important legislation. Is this what Democrats stand for? What happened to their call for civility and bipartisan cooperation? Why do they now want to be obstructionists?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I learned recently that two large retail chains in middle America can truly make a difference when it comes to keeping violence and filth out of our young kids' minds. I think both Wal-Mart and K-Mart should be commended for their recent stance on culture within the marketplace. These superstores may not be perfect, but they are taking an active role in not selling some of the extraordinarily violent and offensive music that could be lining their shelves and raking in the cash. Some of the music they chose not to carry is climbing up the charts, but since so many parents have objected to its profanity and reference to suicide, these stores have pulled some albums from the shelves. Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong, these are mega-marts, not mega-moms or mega-dads, but they are proving that taking a small stand in the marketplace against the increasingly corrupt culture can be done, even if it means foregoing an influx of cash.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July this weekend, I rise to talk about the students who will ensure that the United States remains a beacon of freedom throughout the world. This year I had the pleasure of nominating 25 young men and women from the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania to the United States military services academies. A number of those students were appointed to the academies. This week, those young men and women will start a journey; four years of study at premier institutions of higher learning, followed by active duty in the United States Armed Forces. Throughout their 4 years, they will not only study academics but prepare themselves militarily and physically for service to the Nation as military officers. They are living proof that patriotism is alive at the turn of the millennium, and they are tomorrow's leaders. Therefore, I would like to join their parents and friends in saluting these outstanding students.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of the Child Custody Protection Act and commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership and the other 130 Members who have cosponsored this legislation. It is time that we speak up for the safety of our young daughters, as well as the rights of their parents. I served in the Pennsylvania Legislature when we passed the Parental Consent Law. There are about 20 States that have parental involvement laws. Some parental notice, some parental consent. In Pennsylvania, we require consent of one of the two parents. And in case there is a breakdown between the parents and the child, we have a judicial bypass where the child can go before, in a confidential setting, a judge to get a decision. This law was designed because of a case that happened in Pennsylvania in 1995 where a 12-year-old young girl was impregnated by an 18-year- old male and then the mother of that male took that 12-year-old girl to a neighboring State, New York, without her parents' knowledge or consent, for a secret abortion. Now, my colleagues, this is outrageous where, in America, a stranger can take a minor child whose parents who know the medical history, know the psychological make-up of their child, without their knowledge or consent. There was a study in California of 46,500 teenage school-age moms. Guess what they found? Two-thirds of them were impregnated by adult males. The median age was 22 years old. In many cases, it is these males who are taking the young girls across State lines for abortions, not grandmothers. It is adult males who are exploiting young women so that people will not know what happened. In Pennsylvania, I went to the capital phone books and pulled out a couple of Yellow Pages. Here is one entitled ``abortion.'' Here is a clinic in Maryland advertising, ``no parental consent,'' to get around our State law. Here is one from my district in Lancaster. ``Age restriction, parental or spousal consent, none.'' That is in Delaware, this abortion clinic. I say to the people who are outraged about these ads to teens about smoking, where is their outrage about these ads for teens for abortion? This is a medical procedure that could be life-threatening. We cannot even have a child get their ears pierced or an aspirin from a nurse or a field trip without parental consent. Where is the logic? Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General of Pennsylvania said, ``by supporting and protecting the rights of parents across the Nation, those of us in law enforcement will be able to protect vulnerable children.'' Let us protect them with this bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today a sequel to the speech I gave the other day about the seven habits of highly ineffective government. Mr. Speaker, there are more habits: Number one, create programs and regulations which duplicate already existing programs at the State level. Much of what the Federal government does falls into that category. Number two, make promises that cannot be kept. If we are not careful, Medicare and Social Security could qualify here. Number three, do not reform programs that could go bankrupt until there is a crisis. We are still waiting for the President's Social Security reform. Number four, never hold programs accountable for what they fail to achieve. Title I education funding has yet to raise student achievement. Number five, refuse to reform programs going bankrupt but rather vilify those who attempt to save them. Anyone remember Mediscare? Number six, pretend that only Democrats want to solve problems. No elaboration necessary here. Number seven, declare that the era of big government is over, yet continue expanding big government as much as possible.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today as the United Nations Cairo Plus 5 Prep Conference on Population and Development is going on in New York, our young women around the world are under attack. At Cairo Plus 5, it is the U.S. delegation which is suggesting that any future document should delete virtually all references to parental rights when it comes to a girl's adolescent sexuality; that is right, the U.S. delegation. It is interesting that this is the same week during which we in Congress will address parental rights domestically as we consider the important Child Custody Protection Act. As we speak, young women and their parents around the world face the threat of yet another another government-knows-best strategy that has more potential to destroy families. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the countries of the world who still hold to the importance of parents in critical decisions will reject this propaganda and exploitation of paternity from the U.S. representatives by ensuring and protecting their care-giving parents with the rights inherent in that role.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to draw attention to an amazing scientific and medical breakthrough that has received little attention in the press. It should cause each of us to pause and ponder the miracle and gift of human life. Little Neal Borkowski is still a tiny baby, yet he differs from most because he already has undergone brain surgery, not since his birth, but while he was still in his mother's womb. It was discovered as young Neal was only 20 weeks old and in utero that he had a condition of fluid on the brain. Without corrective measures he surely would not have survived, so at such a critical stage of development doctors opened Neal's mother's uterus, and brain surgery was performed on this unborn baby so that fluid could not collect on his brain. Mr. Speaker, when will we, as a Nation, begin to see this unborn life as sacred and valuable and protected as it deserves? Let us bring our children and grandchildren into the world where they know that all human life, born and unborn, is a miracle and gift from God. Not a sermon, just a thought.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, every day there seems to be a new horror story coming out of the IRS. I sort of feel like David Letterman, because the stories I have to tell are so implausible, so hard to believe, that I should probably say, ``I'm not making this up.'' It turns out that poor Southerners are more likely than almost anyone else to be audited by the IRS. Why do you think this is? Well, of course, one reason is because there is rampant abuse, truly massive abuse in the earned income tax credit program and the IRS is perfectly correct in going after tax cheats who are ripping off their fellow Americans. The problem is that there is another reason why poor Southerners are being targeted. That reason is more sinister and it is a reason the IRS does not want to talk about. The poor do not have the resources to defend themselves against an army of IRS lawyers. So here we have the United States Government embarked on a deliberate policy to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable just struggling to get by, barely making it to the next payday. I think that is wrong.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of House Resolution 27. Members of this House have the distinct opportunity to join our efforts today and stand behind the idea of community renewal. A lot has been written and spoken lately about the idea of ``compassionate conservatism.'' Even Presidential candidates of both parties have enjoyed extolling the success of faith-based and private institutions. Well, all of us, from both sides of the aisle, have the opportunity to support legislation that compassionately looks out for the poor among us. Yet it does this by using the resources of government to spur the local economy and market incentives for the improvement on low- income neighborhoods and communities. For the last year, the Renewal Alliance, a group of Senators and Members committed to assisting poor neighborhoods through civic and legislative solutions and nongovernmental solutions, has recognized private sector solutions to poverty and despair all across the country. We have found neighborhood organizations and communities that are efficiently solving the problems of poverty in ways that a government- run program can only dream of. We must realize that although there is a role for government, we cannot allow it to shackle the very institutions which are providing hope to these communities. That is why the Renewal Alliance has developed the ``Real Life'' agenda, the legislation the gentleman referred to, to strengthen social entrepreneurs who are changing lives and stimulating economic development in our urban centers. They primarily do it in three ways: through community renewal, a charity tax credit; through economic incentives, for investment in poor communities; and through educational opportunities for low-income children. The Great Society program, which was initiated by the liberals, had its $30 billion experiment with government programs. Let us now turn our efforts towards empowering grass-roots leaders who are working to eliminate poverty. These leaders are united in a commitment to offering help and healing to those in need. They have been dedicated to meeting the physical and spiritual and emotional needs of individuals. I have made many stops to small, nonprofit, faith-based charities in my district, and throughout all of my visits, over and over, it is confirmed to me that those whose work springs from a heart dedicated to following a standard larger than themselves do not stop work at 5 o'clock. They do not leave their work at work. They live it, and they breath it. They are committed to helping our society's weakest members and doing the true, time-intensive work of transforming lives and communities. Just as the character of a person is seen in the most precious objects of its love, it has also been said that the character of a nation is shown by how it treats its weakest members. Grass-roots, neighborhood, and community-based healers are found throughout this Nation, and such organizations within the communities have the ability to demonstrate success within a new paradigm, which is often, although not always, a faith component. We must look past the think tanks, past the lofty theories; we must look past the government programs and wasted dollars. We must embrace the common-sense community answers which already exist and are already changing lives in our midst. They do not have hefty budgets. They are places that are not quasi-government, they are charitable in nature, and the Renewal Alliance has made it its business to seek out these kinds of solutions and promote them. It is within these groups time and again that we have seen remarkable transformations taking place, not only in the lives of individuals, but in their families and in surrounding communities. For instance, Teen Challenge of Philadelphia, a faith-based drug and alcohol recovery program, has success rates of 70 to 80 percent compared to single-digit success rates of government programs. Yet it is continually hassled and charged to have the so-called correct staffing requirements which existed in a State-run drug treatment program which had single-digit success rates. Another type of program we must recognize is one like Dorothy Harrell's Abbotsford Tenant Management Association in Philadelphia. Dorothy, unfortunately, cannot hire the residents of her housing facility to perform maintenance tasks around the community because of a government labor law requiring highly-paid workers from outside to come in and do simple tasks. That is absurd. It is the goal of Renewal Alliance not only to bring these wrongs to light, but to promote these ``beacons of hope'' to a larger community. We know that with government programs, 70 percent of every dollar designated to serve the poor goes not to the poor, but to those who serve the poor, the poverty industry. Therefore, there is a proprietary interest in maintaining people in poverty. This is exactly what we need to work against, and it is why we brought this important issue to the forefront of debate today. We as an institution, as Members, must embrace the work of these groups. So today, I urge and challenge my colleagues to support the truly compassionate and, yes, conservative approach to renewing our low-income programs in this community. Support the American Community Renewal Act, a common-sense, next step to restore our cities to vibrancy. I urge support of this resolution so that we can take the next step towards commitment to communities in this Nation.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some red herring arguments this afternoon about whether something violates separation of church and state. I might remind the Members that we are not voting on the American Community Renewal Act, which has been cited and debated and is merely cited in the resolution. We are voting on a Sense of the House Resolution that targets aid and money to poor communities across this Nation. Regarding the issue of separation of church and state, if Members oppose that American Community Renewal Act on that basis, then they should oppose Pell grants. With a Pell grant students use Federal grant money to go to seminaries, to go to Notre Dame, Yeshiva University without raising constitutional concerns. The Substance Abuse Act grant that this cites is no different. Currently, there are two voucher programs we have successfully, legally implemented, the child care block grant in 1993, so that parents could use Federal day care dollars at the provider they choose, religious or secular; second, the new welfare law allows States to contract out their social services to both religious and nonreligious providers. The drug treatment provision is the same. It voucherizes substance abuse block grants and allows the addict to decide. They can opt out. I urge Members to support the resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, first I want to applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for introducing this legislation and for the leadership in protecting Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields and thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his support and leadership. 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 of our forefathers that they made to secure independence and build a new country which today is the world leader in freedom and democracy. Brandywine and Paoli Battlefields are among the few Revolutionary War battlefields that remain unprotected and are threatened by rapid development in the region. It only takes a quick drive through the beautiful Brandywine region to see the rapid and congested development that is closing in on the battlefield grounds. For this reason, it is essential that the PATRIOT Act becomes law and that Brandywine and Paoli Battlefields are preserved for future generations to enjoy and appreciate. The PATRIOT Act will 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. It is the only battle where all the generals of both sides were convened. It was also the 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 the British takeover. It is evident that the battles of Brandywine and Paoli are an integral part of American history. It would be a tragedy if this history were to be lost to rapid development. The local communities in the regions of Brandywine and Paoli have recognized this, they have worked together closely to preserve this land. In fact, I applaud the Brandywine community for already raising enough money to match the Federal assistance necessary for preservation. It is particularly encouraging to witness local students and their work to raise money to build support for the preservation of these battlefields. I was once a school teacher before I went into public service. I know firsthand how important good education is to our children, and students in this region have the opportunity to grow up in an area rich with history. They have the opportunity to learn firsthand about the sacrifice that many Americans made for our freedom. Chris Curtis, who is a student from Exton Elementary School in my district wrote a letter to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), to myself, urging Congress to protect the Paoli Battlefield by passing this act, and here is what he writes: ``I think you should preserve the Paoli Battlefield because 53 people died for our country there. We also want to remember Paoli because we don't want to forget or bury our memories of those who fought so hard for our freedom. We also need to remember the relatives of those who died there. We never want to forget that generation of brave soldiers who died for our country when it was just beginning.'' I could not say it better myself. For our children's sake we must preserve this valuable historic land. Preserving this land will ensure that future generations will be able to experience how the battle unfolded, and history connects people and nurtures identity and community. The local communities have been doing their part to preserve the land. They will continue to do so. It is now time for the Federal Government to do its part. The Federal Government exists for the people. The people want and need to preserve this land. It is our duty to act accordingly. I urge support for House Resolution 659.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as I heard from my youth advisory committee visiting the Capitol today, urban sprawl has become a serious concern to Americans in many parts of the country, from the rural farm country in Lancaster and Chester County, Pennsylvania, to suburbs in the south and west. There are several ways that Congress can help to prevent further unbridled development, yet still keep individual freedoms intact. Today we will take one small step, through the Patriot Bill, to preserve land in Pennsylvania that is central to our American heritage. It is vital that we preserve two of our Revolutionary War treasures, the historic battlefields of Brandywine and Paoli. It will be a tragedy to lose this history to a housing development that now threatens the region. By the same token, we must also take a larger step to give individuals in this country incentives to preserve their farmland and open space. By eliminating such burdensome taxes as the estate tax, capital gains tax which threatens so many family farmers, we allow farms in coveted open space to remain intact. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for farms and for open space. First support the Patriot Bill. Secondly, let us get rid of the death tax once and for all.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fletcher-Hayes character education amendment. Our children spend at least 7 hours a day, 5 days a week in their schools. It is a large part of their day away from their parents. When parents entrust their sons and daughters to our Nation's schools, they hope that their children will continue to be taught things like honesty, citizenship, courage, respect, personal responsibility and trustworthiness. That is what this amendment attempts to ensure, by giving local communities the freedom to develop a character education program consistent with local values. I have with me an example of the type of character education that could be taught to our children. This is a lesson on attentiveness. The goal is to teach children to look at people when they speak to them, ask questions if they do not understand, sit or stand up straight, not draw attention to themselves, keep their eyes, ears, hands, feet and mouth from distractions. These sound like good lessons for all of us. In April of this year, the Florida legislature passed a law requiring character development in elementary schools. One of the supporters of that law said, ``This is Florida's answer to the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado.'' While I do not believe that character education will solve all the problems of our Nation's youth, I do believe that the character of our Nation's youth is worth investing in. I urge support for the amendment

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, this morning let us consider the seven habits of highly ineffective government. Here is a list we can all enjoy, unless, of course, one belongs to the party that has made these seven habits of highly ineffective government what they are most proud of. Number one, disregard the law of unintended consequences. The 1974 campaign finance ``reforms'' anyone? Number two, be compassionate with other people's money. No further comment necessary. Number three, take credit for the other party's achievements. I think welfare reform would certainly qualify here. Number four, spend beyond your means. Forty years of liberal Democratic rule where new programs were created without even asking how to pay for them enshrined this into Washington culture. Number five, demonize your opponent, attack his motives. No such thing as honest disagreements. Number six, promise tax cuts; pass tax increases once in office. That is how the liberals get elected. Number seven, expand entitlements that are about to go bankrupt. How do we think Medicare got to where it is now?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot in this body about achieving the American dream, but even in the most prosperous economic expansion in recent history, many of our fellow Americans still struggle to make it out of poverty. That is why the Renewal Alliance, a bicameral group of legislators here in Congress, seeks to highlight both civic and legislative solutions to the plights of so many low-income Americans who desperately want to make it. They want safe communities and they want honest jobs. I want to encourage my colleagues to join the many members of the Renewal Alliance this week, Renewal Week, and to renew our efforts to pass legislation critical to improving our low-income communities. The American Community Renewal Act, the Charity Tax Credit, and education scholarship opportunities all combine to use a market-driven and even private sector approach to bring about real hope and opportunity through tax incentives for investment, for capital formation, for community reinvestment, and for contributing to charities of our choice, as well as opportunity scholarships. We reward what works. Join us in working for our Nation's low-income communities.