Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence in the ability of liberals to wage war. That is the truth that most of us believe and cannot deny. From the nonsensical way that Johnson and McNamara fought the Vietnam War, to Carter's humiliation in Iran, to our latest misadventure in Kosovo, the truth is there for all to see. The liberal mentality simply is not equipped to deal with the harsh realities of war. They do not understand the first thing about using military force, about protecting America's national interest or about what is required to defeat a determined enemy. Vietnam, Iran hostages and now Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo. The liberals voted against using military force in the Persian Gulf when U.S. interests were clearly at stake, but where U.S. interests are not at stake, such as Haiti or Kosovo, then they are for military force. This is liberalism in the full glory of its contradictions and wrongheadedness. I only can pray that the soldiers, sailors and aviators who must put their lives on the line do not suffer for the naivete and the incompetence of the armchair liberals in this administration.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, as we look to the future, and that is what a budget does, we must evaluate where we are as a Nation. It has become clear to all of us that one of the most important principles that all Americans hold dear is the idea of security: fiscal security for our Nation; financial security for us personally, individually; educational security; security from attack from foreign nations; family security; and retirement security. We need to take care of our growing aging population, and we must also look out for our young people, securing a solid and stable future for them. We are at a crossroads today. What will the priorities of our Nation be? Will security be one of them? If we answer yes, then we must support the Republican budget, for our elders, our baby boomers, our Generation Xers, our Y Generations, all are relying on us to save social security and Medicare. Mr. Chairman, the most responsible way of doing this is by supporting a plan that saves all of the social security surplus. By locking away 100 percent of the social security surplus, 100 percent, we preserve approximately $100 billion more than the President's proposal, more than the President's budget. By establishing this safe deposit box, we prevent a hungry bureaucracy from stealing from social security to pay for other programs, to ensure that retirement money is available for our elders, for our boomers, for our children, for our grandchildren. It is more than the President has offered, and we are doing the same with Medicare. Speaking of the Democratic alternatives, the President, by comparison, does not have the trust of the Senate on his proposal. Instead of saving all of social security, the President would spend some of it. The Senate voted yesterday 97 to 2 to reject his plan. His plan of a government-run board investing social security funds in the stock market was rejected. There is a better way. Support the Republican budget.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about human rights abuses in India today. As we may know, Christians and other religious minorities have faced terrible persecution in India recently. In January, an extremist mob burned alive an Australian missionary and his two sons who were trapped in their car. This is not the first instance of persecution. Over Christmas, churches throughout India were burned and destroyed. Christians' homes were looted and stoned, and Christian individuals were attacked and stoned. In January, missionaries and seminary students were attacked and beaten with rods. Then just last week, an extremist Hindu group called Vishwa Hindu burned 150 Christian homes in Orissa's Gajapati District and terrorized the Christian community with homemade guns. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Indian government to take decisive action to stop this continuing violence and bring to justice those who have committed the crimes, and protect the rights of all minority religious believers in India.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 118, a resolution to reaffirm that this Congress is committed to the principle that all family planning, both in the United States and, as we are addressing in this resolution, abroad should be voluntary. It is critical that we affirm this commitment to voluntary family planning because even this week there is a gathering at the United Nations to discuss a 5-year review of family planning and population development progress since the same Cairo conference 5 years ago. Since this conference 5 years ago, we have heard some disturbing accounts of women around the world becoming victims of coercion by agents of the United Nations. These women's choices are being limited against their will. Is this what so-called population control advocates really want, to tell these women, many of whom are poor and scared, that they can never again bear more children? Well, we have seen the evidence, and that is why it is important for Congress to speak up about this today. For instance, in Peru, what has population control come to mean? Education? Money to buy clean sanitary medical conditions? Even lessons about potential contraception? No. Instead, population control and family planning has come to mean forced, mandatory and coerced sterilization of poor Peruvian women. Have these women chosen such paths for their reproductive futures? Have they been able to discuss options with their husbands and families? No. Without notification and without consent, the international community has strayed from voluntary family planning and is instead actively pursuing targets and quotas and deciding for poor women what is best for them. In Peru, as in many other locations around the globe, this has resulted in sterilizations, sterilizations in filthy, primitive conditions, just to meet a mandated quota. Similarly, in the BBC documentary ``The Human Laboratory,'' women told their stories about how U.S. taxpayer dollars were being used for family planning in Bangladesh, in Haiti. One woman begged to have a Norplant removed. She said, quote, ``I am having so many problems. I am confined to bed most of the time. Please remove it. My health broke down completely.'' She eventually resorted to pleading, ``I am dying, please help me get it out.'' Here was the response. The clinic worker told her, quote, okay, when you die, you inform us and we will get it out of your dead body, end quote. Many other women have complained of severe bleeding, blindness, migraine headaches. According to Farida Akhter, executive director of the Research for Development Alternatives in Bangladesh, quote, it is cheaper to use Third World women for such birth control experimental devices and methods than to use an animal in the laboratory in the West, end quote. Through such grossly unjust experimentation, poor women have been robbed of the most important resource they have, their own healthy bodies. A woman's health is key to the survival of her entire family in many of these countries, and this must come to an end. In the name of population control and under the guise of family planning, America and the United Nations have exported horror to women abroad. And our family planning advocates call this progress? Mr. Speaker, we should be calling it by the most descriptive and accurate term that it is: Slavery. I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Tiahrt resolution today. Reaffirm that all family planning programs should be completely voluntary. Help maintain the dignity of women around the world.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to American families. Tonight, as you sleep, we cannot adequately protect you and your children from a ballistic missile attack from rogue nations, let alone Russia or China. We simply must protect American families. It is our duty--that is why we are here today. Deploying a national missile defense to protect American families simply makes sense. The Administration's current arms control strategy has failed miserably, while rogue nations progress in developing long-ranges missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads. In addition to the established nuclear powers of China and Russia, the Administration has tried, and failed, to prevent Russia from aiding Iran's progress in missile technology and guideane systems. The Administration has failed, too, in Iraq and North Korea. India and Pakistan have established themselves as members of the nuclear club, and Cuba is now being helped by Russia with its own reactor. According to the Rumsfeld Commission, rogue nation like North Korea and Iran will be able to inflict major destruction on the U.S. within about five years of a decision to acquire such a capability. Further, rogues can import technology from Russia and China and greatly decrease acquisition times and increase secrecy. Today, rogue nations don't need to develop weapons of mass destruction, the merely need to purchase it. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the rogue nation threat, the Administration continues to downplay the threat, delay funding and deployment of a national missile defense, and risk the life of every American. This is unacceptable. It is time for the Administration and Congress to make preserving our security and our freedom a priority. It makes no sense at all to grant Russia or China a say in our policy to defend ourselves. We have the technology, designs, and intelligence. All we need is the straight forward policy, and we can begin to deliver on our constitutional duty to adequately defend American families. We can no longer afford to follow the Administration's policy of mutual assured destruction. Rather, we must have a policy of defending American families. Vote for H.R. 4 today, and support a policy that will provide for deployment of a national missile defense.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Albert Einstein once said that the most powerful force on Earth is compound interest. Why this is not taught in our Nation's schools I do not know, but every child in America should be taught about the extraordinary power of compound interest. There is a funny thing about compound interest. My friends on the other side know all about it. In fact, every single one of them is counting on the power of compound interest for the prosperity of their own retirement security. But we will never hear them talk about it. Through the magic of compound interest, ordinary Americans who save can become rich. Let me repeat that. Through the magic of compound interest, ordinary Americans who save can become rich. This is not, of course, a get-rich-quick scheme. In fact, it takes years of discipline and patience, but it is mathematically guaranteed to work. Mr. Speaker, Einstein was right. Let us give younger workers a chance to reap the benefits of compound interest, let us reform Social Security.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, even though our economy is doing well and expansion is continuing, each of us wants to be certain that when it comes time for our retirement Social Security will be there for us. Our current senior citizens need this assurance, the baby boomer generation needs this assurance, and our young people need this assurance. Cynicism runs deep, as illustrated by the fact that today's young people believe that it is more likely that they will spot a UFO than that they will collect Social Security when their time comes. That is why Republicans are showing true leadership by securing 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund for exactly that: saving Social Security. We are committed to strengthening Social Security for years to come. It is important to note that in the 40 years when the Democrats had control of the House, they took hundreds of billions of dollars from Social Security and spent it on other Federal programs. When Republicans took control in 1994, this ended. We balanced the Federal budget, brought about badly needed discipline in our spending activities. So today we must continue, forge a budget agreement that saves and strengthens Social Security. The progress continues.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question to ask. To whom does the surplus belong? Anyone listening to the other side would conclude that the surplus belongs to the government. In speech after speech, I have heard implied that politicians in Washington have the first claim to the money as if it is their money. The surplus belongs to the taxpayers. It is their money. The surplus is in fact nothing more than tax overpayment made by taxpayers. Anyone who has ever looked at Washington for any length of time knows that one of only two things will happen to the surplus. We can give it back to the people who earned it or Washington will find a way to spend it. I think Jesse ``The Body'' Ventura was right. The government should apologize and then refund the money back to the people to whom it belongs in the first place, the taxpayers of America.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today we are addressing an issue important to the Amish community who reside in over 20 States in this country, and I especially want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and the other Members who have helped us craft this bipartisan bill. People around the world know of the Old Order Amish as people who till their land and direct their lives with faith, simplicity and discipline. Traditionally, Amish communities are centered around the family farm, which requires input from the whole family. While caring for crops and animals, Amish parents show their children how to make a living without exposure to outside influences that contradict their beliefs. However, due to the high growth rate, the soaring price of farmland, many Amish have been forced to look for alternatives to farming. Now Amish can be found in small businesses making raw lumber, clocks, wagons, cabinetry and quilts. Therefore, as they did on the family farm and still do, and I might say that in farm work the children are totally exempt from child labor laws, one can find a 10-year-old boy driving a team of mules. I would like to see the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) try that. The Amish now wish to have their youth work with them in these vocational settings. Typically, the youth will learn a trade after the completion of Amish school, or the eighth grade, and be self-sufficient by age 18. The Amish view this work as part of their schooling, since they often accompany a parent to the workplace, very similar to an apprenticeship, and they call this learning by doing. Unfortunately, these small Amish-owned businesses have received costly fines from the Department of Labor for having their young adults work alongside their fathers and uncles, even in family businesses. Mr. Speaker, recently a businessman, an Amish businessman in my congressional district, was fined $10,000 for having his own child in the front office of his business. The teenager, 15 years old, was simply learning to use the cash register alongside her father. She was far from harm's way. Mr. Speaker, these actions by the Department of Labor have severely threatened the lifestyle and the religion of this respected and humble community. The Amish expect diligence, responsibility and respect from their youth. They do not contribute to the social ills of our society, and they do not accept any assistance from government programs. Our government should not interfere with this humble community. Several of my colleagues, along with our Amish constituents, met with the Department of Labor several times last year for a solution. Unfortunately, we received nothing but negative responses from Labor. The Amish have a very unique situation, and they do not benefit from shop or vo-tech like the youth of our schools. My son, at age 14, made furniture on a band saw in a shop class with 15 other students around. We have a responsibility to evaluate the Amish in light of these things, and that is why the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I and others have introduced this legislation, narrowly crafted, and we urge support.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, people would be astounded to learn in America that many public, commercial bookstores throughout the United States are allowed to sell child pornography. I am not talking about adult book stores. I was shocked recently to learn that bookstores like Barnes and Noble and Borders are selling books that show young girls and boys completely nude in suggestive, erotic positions. These children are photographed alone or shown erotically entangled with other young children. Further, many of the captions for the pictures are sexually explicit. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. Child pornography feeds the sick minds of child molesters who sexually prey on defenseless children who live in our neighborhoods. What has the Clinton administration done to protect these children? They have turned a blind eye to some of the most offensive child pornography there is. The administration has not enforced Federal obscenity laws, after promising to make this a priority. Please join me in calling on the administration to enforce our existing Federal obscenity laws.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Social Security was created many years ago, back in the days when perjury was considered a crime. It helped bring peace of mind to millions of Americans who feared destitution or disability in their retirement years. Now, Social Security is running headlong into fiscal reality that no amount of spin or denial or rhetoric will change. If reforms are not made, the system will renege on its promises within a generation. The President himself has acknowledged this reality. However, his proposal, announced in the State of the Union speech, has a few major problems, problems so big that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has spoken out against them. One problem is slick accounting. It just does not add up. The other major problem is the dangerous idea of making Uncle Sam the largest investor in Wall Street, a huge windfall for lobbyists but a deadly strike against retirement security for seniors. We must work together, Republicans and Democrats, to save and strengthen Social Security for current and future generations.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, recently the President, in a talk to college students, revealed what he really thinks of tax relief for American families. He said, and I quote, 15 years from now, if the Congress wants to give more tax relief, let them do it, end quote. So, does this mean that the college students to whom he was speaking must wait until they are in their thirties, most likely married and with children and with steep financial commitments like home mortgages, to receive relief from heavy taxation? Ridiculous. This is certainly unwelcome news to all the middle class American families I hear from, who already spend more in taxes than they do for food, shelter, transportation and clothing combined. With this mentality, it is a good thing the President is only in charge for another 2 years, not 15. Middle class Americans, moms and dads, workers, even students, deserve tax relief; and they deserve it now.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week, I chaired a Congressional Human Rights Caucus Briefing in which expert witnesses from Indonesia showed photographic evidence and reported on the situation facing their people. Attacks on ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Chinese minorities, are continuing and in some instances appear to be orchestrated. Ninety-five churches have been burned or destroyed since May of 1998. Today I am submitting record and statements from this week's briefing. These statements help to note the severity of acts being committed in Indonesia. Statement for Members Briefing on Current Human Rights Abuses in Indonesia Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It is a privilege for me to welcome you to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus Briefing on Current Human Rights Abuses in Indonesia. The extreme nature of the recent human rights abuses in Indonesia has shocked the world. Reports show that churches and mosques have been burned, businesses of ethnic minorities have been looted and destroyed, students were arrested and killed, and women and girls have been brutally raped and sometimes murdered. Today's hearing is sponsored by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The Caucus, co-chaired by Congressman John Porter and Congressman Tom Lantos, is a bi-partisan group of members dedicated to advocating for the protection of human rights worldwide. The situation in Indonesia has long concerned Human Rights Caucus Members and many American people because of the long-standing human rights violations in East Timor. It was not until more recently, however, that the world watched as the horrors perpetrated in East Timor spread throughout Indonesia. As you may know, early last year, riots broke out in major cities in Indonesia. As people stood and watched in horror, rioters looted and destroyed businesses, burned churches, and caused mass destruction. Then, last May, the world stood horrified as it learned of the perpetration of mass rapes. Well-documented reports suggest a systematic plan on the part of the rapists to terrorize the Chinese ethnic community. Groups of unknown assailants would descend on a community, enter businesses, demand money, rape women who were present (often while uttering anti-Chinese rhetoric), and loot and sometimes burn the businesses. Despite the change in the leadership of Indonesia's government, human rights abuses continue. Unfortunately, the stories of situations similar to last year's tragedies have not ceased in Indonesia. Killing and rioting is still occurring. In January of this year, 40 people were murdered in a village in Ambon. Attackers in other areas of the island of Ambon stopped individuals in the streets, asked them what their religion was, and upon the admittance of Christian beliefs, killed the individuals. Reports suggest that approximately ``20,000 people sought refuge in military bases, police barracks, churches and mosques'' in riots in which ``seven mosques, nine churches, and 570 buildings were burned.'' Similar reports have come from Banyuwangi, Ketapang, Poso, and other regions of Indonesia. Other reports give details that during the rioting in the region known as the ``Spice Islands,'' in one week 15 churches and 11 mosques were badly damaged or completely destroyed. Local inhabitants of attacked areas often state that villagers lived in harmony until outsiders came to their homes and, armed with various weapons, instigated the various riots and attacks on ethnic and religious minorities. These attacks continue throughout Indonesia. Many human rights reports suggest that the riots of 1998 and 1999 were orchestrated by a particular individual or group of individuals. The question in people's minds is who or what is behind the terrible violence sweeping through the various regions of Indonesia? Unfortunately, a large portion of the Indonesian population is afraid to report what they have seen. However, today, we will hear from some courageous individuals who desire to see justice and national reconciliation in their country so that stability, based on democracy, will be the norm in Indonesia. The actions of the perpetrators of rape, murder and other crimes and human rights abuses are cowardly and should be internationally condemned. In addition, the government of Indonesia must engage in a thorough investigation to bring to justice those who are responsible for the horrifying human rights abuses occurring even today. I applaud the courage of today's panel and thank them for their willingness, though possibly putting their own lives in danger, to share their knowledge about current human rights violations in Indonesia and who or what might be behind those abuses. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus encourages you in your pursuit of justice and protection of fundamental human rights for the Indonesian people.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express deep concern over the continuing human rights abuses in Indonesia. This week I chaired a Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing in which expert witnesses from Indonesia showed photographic evidence and reported on the situation facing their people. Attacks on ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Chinese minorities, are continuing, and in some instances appear to be orchestrated. Ninety-five churches have been burned or destroyed since May of last year. One photograph showed a security officer standing by while a person's decapitated head was paraded around on a stick. Violence and human rights abuses continue in regions. Rape victims from last year's riots are intimidated. Churches and mosques are burned. Christians and Muslims from rural communities are afraid to return to their destroyed homes. Madam Speaker, I urge the Indonesian government to immediately take steps to protect the fundamental human rights of all people in Indonesia, promptly bring to justice all individuals violating those rights.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last year the Child Online Protection Act passed the House and Senate and was enacted into law. Without diminishing free speech, the Act set up a screening process so that children could not access obscene material on the Web. This sent a strong message that Congress is united in protecting our children from pornography over the World Wide Web. Now, unbelievably, on February 1, a Federal judge in Pennsylvania has blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act. It is appalling that our children can easily access these pornographic sites and pollute their minds with sexually explicit material. In response to the judge's ruling, we must urge the Justice Department to appeal this decision. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join me in standing with American families to protect our children from pornography. Please contact my office if Members want to sign the letter to Attorney General Janet Reno. We owe this to our children.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, when we think of our children's schooling, we think of books, classrooms, computers and things like flash cards, spelling tests and calculators. We do not think of bureaucrats, bureaucratic programs and stacks of paperwork. As we stand here today, children are sitting in their kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms, learning everything from spelling the word ``house'' to a method of reaching a calculus derivative. They are learning with a teacher, and with the use of classroom tools. The very small part that the Federal Government does play in adding value to the elementary and secondary education experience should be to fund classroom activity directly. Dollars to the Classroom: A simple, but profound, concept. Instead of keeping education dollars here in Washington, let us send our Federal dollars directly to the parents, teachers and principals of our local public schools, local people, who are truly helping our children to learn.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it has been several months since I called on the President to resign from office for the good of the country and the honor of the Presidency. Today I will cast my vote in favor of his impeachment because to this day he has refused to live up to the honor demanded of that office. For if the law is not respected and obeyed by the highest official in the land--indeed the Commander in Chief--why should each of us seek to uphold the law. Why could we not selectively choose when to lie and when to tell the truth? It is unbelievable to me today that President Clinton still continues to lie about his affair. He continues to deny that he had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He continues to deny that he has lied under oath. Does he believe that the subject of his words make the truth of his words irrelevant? The fact that he had an affair is not the issue. Yet, when both the President--in swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth--disregards his oath, he fails to meet the high moral standard example demanded of our President. Thus, such disregard for the rule of law demands impeachment action by the Congress of the United States. For, as Chairman Hyde has said, in this country, justice depends on the enforceability of the oath. Accoring to the evidence that I have reviewed, I see no option but to recognize the President's actions as perjurious, and to conclude that he has obstructed justice and abused the power that he has as President of the United States. There are more than 115 people in federal prison for perjury in this country. Should the man charged to lead our Nation with integrity and honesty be allowed to be treated any differently for charges similar or worse than those of individuals who have been convicted--solely because his position of power? the President is not a king. America was built on the ideal of equal justice under law. This concept must apply equally to everyone, including the President. As a Member of Congress, the very first of my duties was to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. My duty this week goes beyond the normal task of making law and directly reflect my sworn duty to maintain the integrity of the Constitution and apply the rule of law, which has held this nation together since its birth more than 200 years ago, to the illegal actions of the President. I soberly take part in this process with the weight of responsibility to the Constitution on my shoulders.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of impeachment. duty, honor, country Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be and what you will be. Over thirty-five years ago, General Douglas MacArthur spoke those words to the United States Corps of Cadets. He spoke those words just a few short years before I went to Vietnam in support of a military action for which this body deemed it necessary to send troops. Not all Americans supported this action. Some Members of this respected Chamber may have even protested against Vietnam. But I, along with millions of other men and women of this country, did my duty. Right now, men and women from all around this country are also doing their duty and serving their country. Yes--today there are service men and women in the Persian Gulf-- putting their lives on the line in defense of freedom. There are also troops on the DMZ in Korea, in the former Yugoslavia and on military bases throughout the world. They are there today, they were there yesterday and they will be there tomorrow--doing--above all else--their duty. Every day, they put their lives on the line for freedom, liberty and democracy. Every day, they uphold the values that we are reminded of every time we see our flag. Every day. Now, let's evaluate how the Commander-in-Chief of those same soldiers treats the words--Duty, Honor, Country? Let me first say. * * * Everyone makes mistakes. I have made many in my lifetime and will make many more. But---- What we are faced with today is a President who, instead of embodying duty and honor--decided to cover up his mistakes and bring others along with him to perjure himself. Very simply * * * he lied under oath. The president shirked the very duty that is encouraged and expected in our armed forces. Instead of admitting his mistakes and facing his duty as leader of this country, he has fallen to lies--upon lies--upon lies. Instead of retaining honor, he has thrown it aside and perjured himself. The next excerpt from the MacArthur quote I shared earlier refers back to the three words--Duty, Honor and Country. He said, ``These are your rallying points--to build courage when courage seems to fail * * * '' The issue we are confronted with today deals with this courage. It is about upholding our democracy, our rule of law and the very honor and duty that U.S. military men and women fight for as we speak. It takes much courage to choose a painful and difficult right over the simpler wrong. Mr. Speaker, oh, that it would be so simple to say that this matter is just about lying about a sexual affair. There is a much deeper issue at stake here. After all the talk of sending a message to our service people abroad--who have learned about duty and honor and sacrifice experientially--is it not clear to us that tonight--and tomorrow--that the most compelling message we can send to them is one that upholds the very ideals for which they fight? Does the code of conduct in the military still matter? Is it just a bunch of empty words? Or does the Commander in Chief--not a king, not a sovereign, but one of us--a citizen of the United States--and indeed, even an officer of the United States Military--have a code of honor and duty to uphold? I challenge my colleagues to consider this--the message that this body will send to the United States Military overseas--must be an affirmation of the ideals that they live by and for which they are serving. As our troops must preserve the freedom we enjoy, so this legislative body is bound by the Constitution which has sustained this great nation in all of our 200 years. The President--the Commander in Chief's actions--compel us to act. We are not driven by politics--but by the only benchmark we have--the rule of law--our ultimate code of honor. These moments could not be more important--for our history--or to our future. These words never held so much meaning: Duty, honor, country. This is indeed a sad day for America. I intend to vote for the articles of impeachment. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, over the last several weeks, the American people have rightly asked, what is an impeachable offense? When the framers used the term ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' they were using a 600-year-old term that did not appear in criminal law. A high crime and misdemeanor does not have to be a crime or a misdemeanor. Impeachable offenses are not necessarily criminal acts. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote that offenses growing out of, ``personal misconduct must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty.'' In other words, misconduct can be an impeachable offense. An impeachable offense may be anything that is dishonorable, like abuse of power, obstructing justice or lying under oath. In conclusion, Abraham Lincoln once made a statement. He said, ``You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.'' He made that statement in a place called Clinton, Illinois.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, some have argued that private conduct does not matter. But as leaders we must set the example, guiding our Nation by our actions. Example is the best precept. Aesop, the learned storyteller, writes the following fable: One fine day two crabs came out of their home to take a stroll on the sand. ``Child,'' said the mother, ``you're walking very ungracefully. You should learn to walk straight forward without twisting from side to side.'' ``Mother,'' said the young one, ``set the example yourself, and I will follow you.'' Example is the best precept. President Franklin Roosevelt said the following: ``The presidency is not merely an administrative office. That's the least of it. It is preeminently a place of moral leadership.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time for our leaders to lead, not just fiscally, not just politically but morally. Example is the best precept.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a nursery rhyme for the kids in the White House: ``Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.'' Mr. Speaker, back when this nursery rhyme was written, when kings were sovereign and people were subjects, it was a revolutionary concept to say that we the people are sovereign and that government officials are subject to the rule of law like all other citizens. In America, the President is not a king. In America, no man has more rights because he has more money, more property or higher position. All are equal before the law. All are subject to the law. And when a man violates the law, he must answer to the law and not opinion polls. ``And all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.'' Today all the king's men are still trying to put Humpty back together in one piece, but falling and breaking the law has consequences in America even for a man who thinks he is above the law.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am absolutely amazed that the same people who opposed the Dollars to the Classroom Act, a Republican bill to send $2.74 billion to our children's public schools, are today telling the Nation that Republicans are opposed to hiring new teachers for public school classrooms. This is a falsehood. Republicans have been working to send dollars to local schools so new teachers can be hired, classrooms can be connected to the Internet, computers can be bought to enhance learning, microscopes can be purchased so biology students can view various parts of nature, reading specialists can be hired to ensure that every child learns to read, and the list goes on and on. The point is that Republicans do not believe that the Federal Government should dictate and mandate to principals, teachers, and parents what is needed for our Nation's classrooms. Do Members of Congress actually have the audacity to believe that they in their Capitol Hill offices and those in the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue or bureaucrats at the Department of Education in Washington know what is needed in every single classroom in our Nation? They cannot possibly know. A child in a classroom in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, might have different needs than one in New York City or Anchorage, Alaska. As a teacher, I know that the only way to truly know what a child needs to learn is to see that child, to listen to that child every day. That is why Republicans are working for local control of education. While the President wants to control local schools from the Washington beltway, Republicans are working to send dollars to our Nation's classrooms. Do many of our Nation's public schools need more teachers? Many do. However, 100,000 new teachers is not a cure-all solution for the schoolchildren of our Nation. Are these 100,000 good teachers? The President evidently does not care about that, since he vetoed our bill for teacher training and merit pay. There are many wonderful teachers serving our Nation's classrooms. Even they will tell us that just hiring another person is not going to improve learning. Is that not what we are about, improving classroom learning for our children? Then why is the other side afraid of sending dollars to the classroom, to be used to meet the educational needs of local schoolchildren, whether the need is for a new teacher, new instructional materials, or a new computer? Why has the President threatened to veto the Dollars to the Classroom Act, that would send an additional $800 million to the classroom to meet these critical needs without new taxes, just increased efficiency by bypassing the bureaucracy? In the omnibus bill Republicans are supporting education funding, but with the requirement that the dollars are sent to the classroom. We simply believe that local school districts should decide if they need more teachers, more books, more computers, or building repairs. We support the hiring of new high-quality teachers, the reducing of class size, providing professional development to teachers to teach children, providing for teacher competency exams. But we do not want this directed by Washington bureaucrats. We want more dollars to local schools, more local control, and more local flexibility. Teachers are not calling for more government programs, they are calling for more local control and flexibility, dollars to the classroom. A program similar to the Dollars to the Classroom Act and one which the President has opposed is Title VI, the block grant. Educators nationwide have expressed how much they like this program, for it is extremely flexible, allowing them to focus on priorities of children in their schools. On Monday I believe our House Republicans offered the President a $1.1 billion educational proposal that would expand Title VI, emphasizing the hiring of new high-quality teachers to reduce class size. I would like to tell the Members about a few of the locally-driven initiatives that have resulted from Title VI in Pennsylvania. Garnet Valley, in Delaware county, implemented an English course supplemental program. Teachers and students were trained on the successful completion of research projects, use of CD-ROM products, and print resources to support the student thesis. Southeastern Greene School District implemented a professional development technology program to support reading, language arts, and math at the elementary level. In Philadelphia, the Model for Enriching Reading through In-service Training Professional Development program was created. Professional development and student participation was conducted in ``Writing and Language Arts'', ``Parent Conferencing,'' and ``Content Area Writing.'' When dollars are sent to the classroom and schools are given flexibility using them, success is the outcome. Do we want children to have these types of successful learning experiences, or do we simply want them to attend smaller classes? That seems like an awfully simplistic answer to an enormous problem. I urge the President to agree to send education dollars in the omnibus bill to the classroom, to a teacher who knows the names of our children.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is story time once again. Once upon a time, a girl named Little Red Riding Hood was traveling alone to a big white house in the woods. In her travels, she encountered a predator: A sly and vicious wolf. And as this story tells us, the Wolf, smacking his lips, exclaimed, and I read, ``What a plump little lass.'' The Wolf, an expert on preying on women of all shapes and sizes, called out to her, ``Would you like to have some pizza as I shut some things down?'' Well, Little Red Riding Hood, not knowing what she was getting into, and really liking pizza, agreed and proceeded to the big white house. It was there that the wolf did his dirty work. Sadly, it was only for fear of the hunters that the Big Bad Wolf and his friends let Little Red Riding Hood go. They even tried to send her traveling to another den of wolves in the big city. Today, we still have wolves in high places who use deception to cover their evil intentions. These predators who prey on young women without care for the consequences must be stopped.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I want to put domestic concerns and partisan concerns aside and speak for five minutes on behalf of the fundamental human right of religious liberty in the House Churches in China. Recently a number of House Church leaders in China wrote a very respectful appeal to the government of the People's Republic of China. The appeal says nothing against the Chinese Government, but reflects the utmost respect. These House Church leaders respectfully request that their government release those Christians imprisoned in labor reform camps and to stop attacks on the church. In addition, the authors request that the PRC begin a dialogue with the House Church leaders in order to deepen mutual understanding and to reduce confrontation between the two parties. Mr. Speaker, the House Church leaders who drafted this document and who sent it to Beijing have taken a very bold and possibly dangerous step in hoping for recognition from their government. I encourage the Chinese Government to take steps to increase religious liberty for the Chinese people, to use caution in these matters, and to deal justly with issues of religious freedom. It is vital that Americans support these courageous House Church leaders and members as they appeal to the Chinese Government for protection of their religious freedom. I would like to read the House Church appeal which has seven points to it for the Congressional Record. It is entitled ``a united appeal by the various branches of the Chinese House Church.'' One: We call on the government to admit to God's great power and to seriously study today's new trends in the development of Christianity. The government should realize if it were not for the work of God, why would so many churches and Christians be raised up in China? Therefore, the judicial system in the People's Congress and the United Front System should readjust their policies and regulations on religion lest they violate God's will to their own detriment. Two: We call on the legal authorities to release unconditionally all House Church Christians presently serving in Labor Reform Camps. These include Presbyterians who believe that if one is saved once he or she is saved always; Charismatic Church; Local Church, incorrectly called Shouters Sect; the Way of Life Church, also called the Full Scope Church; the Pentecostal Church; Lutherans who do not attend the Three-Self Churches; and the Baptist Church. They should be released from prison if they are orthodox Christians, as recognized by Christian churches internationally, and have been imprisoned for the sake of the gospel. Three: There are approximately 10 million believers in the Three-Self Church but 80 million believers in the House Church. The House Church represents the mainstream Christianity in China. Therefore, the government should face reality as it is. If Taiwan with its population of 22 million cannot represent China, but the mainland can with its population of 1.2 billion, likewise the Three-Self Church cannot represent the Chinese Christian Church. The Three-Self Church is only a branch. Moreover, in many spiritual matters there is serious deviation in the Three-Self Church. The government should clearly understand this. Four: We call on the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party to begin a dialogue with representatives of the House Church in order to achieve better mutual understanding, to seek reconciliation, to reduce confrontation, and to engage in positive interaction. Five: We call on the government to spell out the definition of a ``cult.'' The definition should be according to internationally recognized standards and not according to whether or not people join the Three-Self. Six: We call on the legal authorities to end their attack on the Chinese House Church. History has proven that attacks on Christians who fervently preach the Gospel only bring harm to China and its government. Therefore, the legal system should end its practice of arresting and imprisoning House Church preachers and believers, confining them in labor camps, or imposing fines as a punishment. Seven: The Chinese House Church is the channel through which God's blessing comes to China. The persecution of God's children has blocked this channel of blessing. Support of the House Church will certainly bring God's blessing. We hope the government will have a positive response though this united appeal by the House Church. The Holy Spirit has awakened our hearts. May God bless China. Signed Henan Province. August 22, 1998. This letter was signed by seven key House Church leaders. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that with the definition of cults which some of the authorities in China appear to have adopted, most of the churches in America would be classified as cults, because under that policy, they could not talk about such things as the end of the world, the second coming of Christ, abortion or spiritual warfare. I would appeal to the government authorities in China to deal with believers prudently and cautiously, to treat them with dignity and respect. I would remind them it is those countries that recognize the importance of religious liberty and treat it as a fundamental human right which are the most stable societies in the world.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time previously allotted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).