Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, after voting in overwhelming numbers for the release of the Starr report, many Democrats are now blaming the Republicans for being too partisan in the handling of the President's scandal. These Democrats are implicitly claiming that they had some kind of bipartisan consensus during Watergate. How short their memories are. In fact, of the 134 staff positions authorized for the impeachment inquiry of 1974, only 12 were for Republican staff, 12 out of 134. When Speaker Carl Albert decided to refer impeachment resolutions to the Rodino committee, no Republicans were included in the meeting. When the committee met to consider subpoena authority, the Republicans proposed that the chairman and ranking member have joint authority. This idea was defeated in a party line vote. While the Democrats work on forgetting things, Republicans will work to fairly uncover the truth.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to provide an exemption from Department of Labor (DOL) wage and hour regulations to employees of private, nonprofit institutions who serve as houseparents. Houseparents are men and women who work and live in certain institutions and care for and supervise residents of the institution. Usually in compensation for their services, houseparents receive a fixed annual salary, food, lodging, and transportation. Mr. Speaker, there are several wonderful homes in my district that use the houseparent model. They are: a home for teenage mothers with small children, a home for pregnant young women, a home for disabled adults, as well as several homes for troubled and abused children. These homes have been very effective in caring and ministering to these needy individuals. Because of the care and support of their houseparents, most of these individuals are able to leave the group home and become productive members of society. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor's recent interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as it applies to houseparents has resulted in lawsuits and large legal fees for a small non-profit group home in my district, and several other homes across the nation. Houseparents serve a much different purpose than other caretakers of institutions. Houseparents volunteer to permanently reside at the group home in which they work. Caring for the individuals in their home is more of a calling to them than an occupation. The DOL, however, has decided that these houseparents should be paid minimum wage and overtime pay for the time they are at the home. This means that many houseparents would need to be paid 24 hours a day, even for the time they are sleeping, or not directly caring for the residents of the home. This ridiculous interpretation by the DOL has driven up the cost of operating these homes to the point that many of them can no longer provide services and have been shut down. Other homes are being forced to use a type of employment model whereby ``teams'' of houseparents would be required to work in eight-hour shifts to care for the residents. Not only does this shift model also drive up costs, but also destroys the family-like arrangement of the home. Mr. Speaker, houseparents serve a very important role in these institutions. They create a family atmosphere for individuals who do not have parents or whose parents are unable to care for them. Individuals who work in these homes do so out of a selfless calling, and provide structure and care for a vulnerable group of people in our country. My bill will end the Department of Labor's policy of stopping houseparents from caring for people who need their loving support.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about recent reports that the government of Iran has executed a member of the Baha'i faith, and imprisoned and condemned others to death solely because of their religious beliefs. In addition, reports suggest that Iranian officials arrested 32 Baha'i teachers in a crackdown against those of the Baha'i faith. The recent execution of Mr. Ruhollah Rowhani for proselytism is the first execution of a Baha'i in six years and, unfortunately, it was accompanied by the death sentence of other Baha'is. Just last week, two of these sentenced men had their death sentence confirmed. Mr. Sirus Zabihi-Moghaddam and Mr. Hedayat Kashefi Najafabadu were arrested in the fall of 1997 for holding meetings for religious ``family life.'' Reports reveal that after no legal representation at secret trials at the beginning of 1998, the two men were sentenced do death. Unfortunately, there are other Baha'is in similar situations. Mr. Speaker, the government of Iran must be held accountable for violating the fundamental human right of religious liberty for the Baha'i and other religious minority believers in Iran. If the leadership of Iran desires to play a role in the international community, they must uphold religious liberty and all fundamental human rights for all people. I, and other Members of Congress, Senators and the American people will be watching closely to see whether or not the Iranian government protects the rights of its people, or continues to blatantly violate international human rights norms.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to watch the spin, the sheer audacity of those who defend the wrongdoing of liberals, whatever the cost. It has gone from ``it didn't happen'' to ``it doesn't matter'' to ``everyone does it'' to ``I'm so sorry.'' The reputations which have been trashed I guess we should just forget. The thousands and thousands of dollars in lawyers fees that innocent bystanders had to fork out, well, I guess that is their problem. The millions of dollars in court costs that the legal system has had to needlessly endure I suppose is no longer relevant. Should we pretend that the rule of law is not important? Should we pretend that defendants in a sexual harassment case are not entitled to a fair trial? After all, lying about related misconduct is a private affair. Should we pretend that honor and integrity are not important? Madam Speaker, the astonishing thing is that not one Cabinet member or one White House staffer has resigned because of this whole sordid mess. Have they no shame?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook- Barcia-Manzullo parental notification amendment. Parents should have the right to know what the Federal Government is doing to their children. It absolutely amazes me that the opponents of this provision do not have a problem with having to write a note for their daughters to receive an aspirin at school or permission to have their ears pierced. Yet, when it comes to young girls being given serious birth control prescription by strangers, opponents do not believe that parents should even be told, that they even have the right to know. President Clinton has said, parents quite simply have a right to know. Unfortunately, he was not referring to parents having the right to know about their children being given DepoProvera, he was referring to the importance of parents knowing which companies are most responsible for the problem of teen smoking. If parents quite simply have the right to know about teen smoking, then surely they have the right to know if their minor daughter is receiving potentially dangerous contraceptive prescriptions. The Istook amendment is the only amendment that requires parental notification for prescription contraceptives. The Greenwood amendment would gut this provision. I urge Members to vote for the Istook-Barcia-Manzullo amendment, to give parents the right to protect their minor daughters.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Online Protection Act. It is our duty to protect America's children from online pornographers. Kids in America know computers. They are being raised in an age where information is at their fingertips; at the flip of a switch or at the click of a mouse. While internet access is an incredible enhancer of learning, our kids are also put in danger of exposure to pornographic materials. The Child Online Protection Act would require operators of commercial adult worldwide web sites to take steps to restrict children's access to pornographic materials. Opponents of this bill will claim that we are attempting to federally sensor the internet. This is simply not true. In fact, the legislation specifically states that it must not be construed to authorize the FCC to regulate in any manner the content of any information provided on the worldwide web. The bill simply requires commercial providers to place materials that are harmful to minors on the other side of adult verification technology. Let us protect our children, let us make the internet more family friendly by passing the Child Online Protection Act today.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Online Protection Act. It is our duty to protect America's children from online pornographers. Kids in America know computers. They are being raised in an age where information is at their fingertips at the flip of a switch and a click of the mouse. While Internet access is an incredible enhancer of learning, our kids are also put in danger of exposure to pornographic materials. The Child Online Protection Act would require operators of commercial adult World Wide Web sites to take steps to restrict children's access to pornographic materials. Opponents of this bill will claim that we are attempting to federally censor the Internet. This is simply not true. The bill simply requires commercial providers to place materials that are ``harmful to minors'' on the other side of adult verification technology. Let's protect our children and make the Internet more family friendly by passing the Child Online Protection Act today.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, there is a children's story that is instructive in these critical days. It goes something like this: There was once a little boy who lived in a little white house. His name was Pinocchio. Pinocchio was a wooden puppet who came to life and had many unhappy adventures because he was very selfish. Pinocchio had trouble with telling the truth. Whenever Pinocchio told a lie, his nose grew longer. Once, when he told several lies, his nose became so long he could not even get out of his little white house. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how long his nose could get with 7 months of not telling the truth. Like Pinocchio, some people today have a problem with telling the truth. In the end, Pinocchio became a real boy, and he did the honorable thing; he told the truth. I wish certain people today would learn the same lesson, those in the big White House.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the many people in Indonesia suffering from religious and ethnic hatred and abuse. The recent reports of riots and mass rapes of Chinese women has shocked the world. The extreme nature of these stories and the human rights abuses have made many wonder if the stories can really be true. Unfortunately they are. Earlier this year riots broke out in major cities of Indonesia. As people stood and watched in horror rioters looted and destroyed Chinese businesses. Authorities arrested and even killed students, and assailants brutally raped and murdered Chinese women and girls. Reports suggest that 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. Horrifying testimonies of rapes of girls, young women and older women revealed what some believe to be a calculated attempt to humiliate and terrorize the population into becoming followers of the government and military. The actions of the rapists and looters are cowardly, should be internationally condemned. In addition, although the Indonesia government has acknowledged that the rapes occurred, it must engage in a thorough investigation. They must be held accountable before the world community for the riots and mass rapes and bring to justice those who are responsible for these terrible atrocities. This summer I cohosted a Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing on human rights abuses in Indonesia. The courageous panel of witnesses put their own lives in danger by sharing their stories and experiences in Indonesia. Father Sandyawan, the leader of the team that testified is now on the run. His offices, his house, have been ransacked, his assistants have been harassed, and his wife has been threatened. Unfortunately reports reflect that the minority Chinese ethnic and religious population has been the target of most of the riot activity. This reflects a terrible violation of human rights and raises the possibility that there could be an increase in human rights abuses and a limit to basic freedoms for the general Indonesian population as a whole. It is an understatement to say that the economic and political situation in Indonesia has been highly unstable in these past 8 or 9 months. Indonesians have lost their life savings, they have struggled to get food for their families, they live in fear of losing their lives in the riots which occurred. Reports suggest that the ethnic Chinese only leave their homes to go to and from work. Otherwise they stay hidden. Despite the change in the leadership of Indonesia's government on May 21, the rapes and other human rights abuses continue. In the midst of this turmoil and even before the current chaos began another group has suffered and continues to suffer as victims of violence and arson. The Indonesian Christian population has borne tremendous difficulty as government troops have closed churches and places of worship. Further, angry mobs have ransacked and destroyed their churches. Since independence in 1945, and especially since the inception of the Suharto regime in 1966, reports reveal that mobs have burned or otherwise destroyed 483 churches, and 228 of those churches were destroyed after January 1996. Attackers destroyed the churches with Molotov bombs, fires and mob action. I have besides me photographs which show the devastating effects of the attacks on the churches. In addition, there is a photo of a young woman who was burned to death in East Java while in her church. Unfortunately, although the new president of Indonesia promised change, churches continue to fall under attack. Fifteen churches have been destroyed during the four months since President Habibie assumed power. Let me show you these photographs. The top photograph is of a Catholic church in West Java while it is burning. The bottom photograph is another church in South Kalimantan. The top photograph here is this same Catholic church after it has been burned. The congregation is sitting in the shell continuing to worship, but with no roof top. Here is another Indonesian Christian church that has been burned and ransacked. Here is a Protestant church in South Kalimantan, and here is remains of the lady who was burned in that church. Indonesia is a member of the United Nations, but it is not party to any of the U.N. agreements which protect basic human rights such as freedom of religion. Mr. Speaker, the human rights violations in Indonesia must stop, and the world community demands that they investigate and pursue justice. A news article from June 18 states that ``Indonesia's politics is becoming more Islamic.'' Although there are numerous moderate Muslims in Indonesia who would protect the right of their Christian brothers and sisters to worship and share their faith freely, there are extremists who appear intent on securing power and ruling according to Shari'a (pronounced Shar-ee-aa) law. Recent laws have been passed which restrict freedom of speech and conversion to another religion; restrict licensing for building places of worship; restrict Muslims from marrying non-Muslims; and restrict the religious education of private schools. In addition, the government must approve of religions--certain religions are illegal in Indonesia. There are a few other nations of the world which have extremist governments, who do not respect freedom of belief for Christians, animists, or other non-Muslim religions. And reports from Christians in Indonesia show their fear of being ruled by extremists. As the world works to help Indonesia recover economically, it is vital that those solutions also address underlying issues in the culture, such as ethnic and religious prejudices, and the ensuing restrictions on fundamental human rights. The government of Indonesia should thoroughly investigate the mass rapes of Chinese women as well as the destruction of churches and bring those responsible for these organized terrorist attacks to justice. The world community of civilized nations demands no less.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this month is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I am concerned that the National Cancer Institute, our Federal agency charged with leading the war on cancer, refuses to tell American women the truth about one of the most avoidable risk factors for breast cancer; that is, abortion. Eleven out of twelve studies, most done by or funded by the National Cancer Institute, show higher breast cancer incidence among American women who have had an abortion. Meanwhile, the NCI claims on its website there is no convincing evidence of the abortion/breast cancer link. An exhaustive review of the evidence published 2 years ago by Penn State College of Medicine estimated that almost 5,000 American women get breast cancer every year because they chose to have an abortion; 5,000. Mr. Speaker, covering up the truth about possible cancer risk is a serious matter and must be addressed. I urge the House to hold hearings on this matter of importance to all women.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend my son, Dan, was married to Paige Overton of Knoxville, Tennessee. So today I would like to talk to them. Dan and Paige, what a magnificent wedding. We love you and are so happy for you. Never forget what the pastor shared; that according to the scriptures, the institution of marriage and family was God's idea. That is why it is so right and good. When you think about family, they are the people that God brings into your life. You do not choose your brother or sister, your parents or children. God gives them to you. So, Paige, we are so delighted to welcome you into our family. You are a very special young lady. Dan and Paige, you waited and prayed for each other, and God has given you the desires of your heart. His very best. Congratulations. We love you, we are proud of you, we are grateful for you, and we wish you a lifetime of happiness together. And have a great honeymoon.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, consider the charges of partisanship by the liberal spin doctors. Just what does bipartisanship mean to the other side? Does it mean whenever Republicans agree with the Democrats, that is bipartisanship? Fact: The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted with the Republicans to release materials from the Starr report. Yet the majority of Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary voted against what the majority of their own caucus, including their leadership, voted. So by this definition, it is the Republicans who are acting in a partisan manner. Mr. Speaker, this is classic liberal rhetoric, typical of the double standards of liberalism. Fact: Liberals who assailed Ronald Reagan for 8 years because they disagreed with his policies are the very same people who label anyone who criticizes the President as a Clinton hater. Anyone who disagrees with a liberal is met with shrill accusations of being partisan. The next time you hear a liberal say ``partisan,'' just remember the Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas hearings. You will say, thank heavens for Henry Hyde.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll writes the following: When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. Mr. Speaker, the Humpty Dumpty's of our political landscape use words to mean what they want them to mean. Yet the fact remains, words have very specific meanings, meanings that no common person would dispute. Alone means alone; is means is; sex means sex. No matter what mental gymnastics someone goes through. Words have meanings. When someone uses words in a court of law to mean things that they do not actually mean, that is called lying under oath. That is wrong. It is dishonorable and worthy of a congressional inquiry.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the imprisoned religious believers in China. Chinese officials imprisoned Pastor Xu Yongze for setting up a house church and for working with overseas organizations. Reports suggest that since his arrest on March 16, 1997, authorities have beaten and tortured Pasture Xu and prevented his family from seeing him. Further, the government rearrested 65-year-old Bishop Su Zhimin for sending a letter to Chinese authorities protesting religious freedom violations. Bishop Su spent 20 years in prison for the crime of respecting the authority of the Vatican and refusing to join China's State-sponsored church, the Catholic Patriotic Association. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Chinese government to release Pastor Xu and Bishop Su, and begin to protect the Chinese people's fundamental right to religious liberty.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for their work on this issue in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, today we are addressing an issue important to the Amish communities of more than 20 States in this country. In my district alone, approximately 30,000 Amish reside. People around the world know the old-order Amish to be a people who till the land and who live a disciplined, simple life. Traditionally, Amish communities are centered around the family farm. Amish parents show their children how to make a living by caring for crops and animals. However, combine the high growth rate and the soaring price of farm land and many Amish have been forced to look for alternatives to farming. Amish have now developed numerous small businesses in such things as carriages, lumber, clocks, wagons, cabinetry, and quilts. And it is in these businesses, just like on the farm, that the Amish train their youth to work and to learn the trade of their parents. As my colleagues may know, in the Amish culture idleness is forbidden. Therefore, because Amish school is only up to the 8th grade, and that is by the approval of the courts and the State governments, and this is according to their religious beliefs, younger kids must immediately begin to learn a vocation after they finish the 8th grade. And this is a vital extension of Amish schooling. It is sort of like an apprenticeship program. They do not have the benefit of shop class or vo-tech like many of the other youngsters have. It is not uncommon for Amish teens to accompany a parent to the workplace. The Amish call this learning by doing. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here to discuss this issue today is because this hard-working community and its apprenticeship tradition is being threatened. Unfortunately, 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, action of the Department of Labor have severely threatened the life-style and the religion of this respected and humble community. All the Amish folks want is to be left alone, to teach their youth the necessary skills and work ethic, and to bring up the next generation in a way that will allow them to be diligent and responsible. The Amish do not accept any assistance whatsoever from government programs, and our government should not interfere with this humble community. Several of my colleagues, along with our Amish constituents, have met with the Department of Labor officials several times over the past 2 years to find an administrative solution to this problem. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor has done nothing to recognize the unique situation of the Amish. This community, which does not have the benefit of shop class, as I said, or vo-tech schools like most youth of their age, instead have family learning situations. They have a responsibility to evaluate the Amish in this light. That is why the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I, along with numerous other Members, have introduced H.R. 4257. This narrow legislation will allow only young adults of the Amish faith to accompany a parent or a relative to work in places of business, including those where machinery is used to process wood products. They cannot use these machines or power tools, but they can be on the premises with certain safety precautions and they can do such things such as sweep sawdust, stack planks, glue lumber, and do paperwork. This legislation takes all the necessary health and safety requirements seriously. It requires that young adults be supervised. It prohibits them from operating machinery. It provides numerous safety protections. Mr. Speaker, many communities like Lancaster County, Pennsylvania greatly appreciate the heritage and work ethic of the Amish. We want to keep them as part of our communities. However, if the Amish continue to be attacked by the State and Federal governments, they will be driven out of our communities. Their strong heritage will be undermined by governmental interference. I urge my colleagues to protect the Amish heritage. Support H.R. 4257.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, for 7 months, Americans have been wondering why there is a deafening silence from the feminist organizations in Washington. Despite their loud and organized opposition to the allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas, their outrage at Senator Packwood, nary a word was said about activity in the White House. But look at the headlines. The feminists have finally found their tongues and they support the President. In fact, they are proud of him. Barbara Laden, of the Independent Women's Forum, charges that the left- wing feminist groups are, ``willing to sell out the real interest of women to play partisan politics. It is an embarrassment. They're actually betraying feminism,'' she says. Mr. Speaker, misbehavior, whether by the left or right, is wrong. I am sorry to see that so-called feminist leaders cannot find their moral outrage when the offense is on the left.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, remember the story of Rip Van Winkle, who slept for 20 years, then woke up and was surprised by all the changes that had taken place during his slumber? A lot of people do not know this, but Rip Van Winkle had some relatives, the Rip Van Democrats, who have also slept for a long, long time. The Rip Van Democrats slept for 40 years, until waking up in 1995 to discover that the Republicans had taken over. But during those 40 years of slumber, their liberal friends were out plundering the Social Security trust fund and spending it on big government programs. When they woke up they were shocked, shocked to find out that the liberals had left not only Medicare teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, but Social Security as well. So their only recourse was to blame the Republicans for the mess that their liberal friends themselves had created. That is the story of the Rip Van Democrats.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the persecuted Christians in the Republic of Maldives. Reports indicate that on June 18, 1998, police searched foreign workers' homes and confiscated passports, correspondence, books and other possessions. Approximately 19 foreign Christians were forced to sign statements and were expelled for life from the Maldives. In addition, Christian Maldivian citizens have been arrested and put in prison. Authorities have denied these individuals visits from their families and have subjected some of them to torture. Despite government statements that, ``The Maldives respects all religion'', reports suggest the contrary. Mr. Speaker, I urge the government of Maldives to protect the religious liberty of all of its citizens and release the individuals who have been arrested for their religious beliefs. Religious liberty should be a fundamental human right of all peoples of the world.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, there is a famous story told of George Washington when he was but a young boy. Every schoolchild in America is taught this story. It is the story of how, even as a young boy, Washington was a person of honor. When he was asked by his father if he had cut down his father's favorite cherry tree, he responded, I cannot tell a lie, father. I did chop down the cherry tree. How forthright. You cannot get any more honest than that. Yet, with the rationalization being promoted by many in the media today, Washington could have responded like this and gotten away with it: ``Well, father, I did not technically cut down the cherry tree, only the hatchet made contact with the tree. I did not touch the tree. I stand by my story and what I believe the meaning of the word `cut' is.'' How things have changed in America. What are the children in America learning today?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor an organization celebrating its 125th anniversary in my district in Pennsylvania. The Kennett Grange No. 19 is now celebrating 125 years of continuous service to our area. Founded in the Borough of Kennett Square in 1873, this chapter is presently the third oldest in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, although it was the 19th one organized. In 1932 when the Kennett School District consolidated, the members purchased the original Greenwood School building in Kennett Township and have been meeting there ever since. Now that is impressive! The dedication of the community to the continuation of this Grange must be commended. On a local, county, state, and national level, this Grange has made a difference! Your active commitment has not gone unnoticed. So today, I want to honor the Kennett Grange for the way they encourage family participation and promote community service and education here in Chester County and across the nation. I and to wish them continued blessing. Here's to another 125 years!

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, again the Democrats are cooking the books. This amendment takes away the States' flexibility that we are trying to provide under our bill. It is based on the philosophy that the Federal Government knows best. The States and local districts should be making the decisions about how best to achieve the goal of improved student performance. Under this amendment, States are allowed to use only one-half of 1 percent of their funds to carry out activities relating to improving teacher quality. At the local level such use of funds are only allowable after they have met certain specific targets in class size reduction. In effect, this amendment puts a very low priority on the importance of teacher quality and too much faith in the benefits of class size reduction. In fact, teacher quality is more important than class size. After all, what good is a classroom of 20 or 10 or even 5 students if the teacher has no idea about the subject in which he or she is teaching? We have seen massive class size reduction efforts in several States that have led to negative impacts in certain poor and rural areas where already they are experiencing shortage of qualified teachers. A mandate that further reduces class size will, in effect, force them to hire more inexperienced and unqualified teachers with emergency license. This amendment will only force thousands more children to be sent into trailers parked in the backs of schools. Is this what the supporters of this amendment really want? The quality of the teacher is much more important. We should emphasize that and let the local districts and the States, who understand that, have that flexibility.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, the liberal Democratic philosophy seems to be based on the Federal Government knows best. We believe that the States, the local teachers, not the Federal Government, should be making the decisions. This bill does not hurt poor kids. None of the programs for poor kids go away. It only goes away for bureaucrats. Perhaps the gentleman believes that having bureaucracy eat up 35 percent of our Federal funds is effective. I do not. We can use these funds for all the programs listed, and we make them much more effective by requiring 9 percent to get to the classroom. I want to read just a portion of a letter from the Missouri State Teachers Association that represents 41,000 members. They have always made local control a major tenet. They say, the history of Federal programs has been one of bureaucracy and red tape. The application of the common sense approach to assist the needs of the local community's public schools has been handcuffed by Federal Rules, regulations and excessive administrative overhead. Freedom of choice is what we support.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for bringing this reform to the floor. Before I go into the specifics of this bill, let me just cover some charts here. This is a $2.74 billion bill that directs money to the classrooms, to the parents, the teachers, and the children of this Nation. And what I am looking forward to is delivering this check. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity to go to their districts and give a check to their children, to their teachers, to their parents, similar to this for the 16th Congressional District. This money can be used the way they want to spend it, and this is additional money under the existing appropriations level. This is the kind of money that is being freed up due to elimination of the administrative requirements that are presently required that eat up about 35 percent of Federal education tax dollars. Let me just briefly describe the bill. What the bill does is consolidate 31 Federal programs and, instead of those Federal programs, as this chart shows, being siphoned off at every level, the Federal level, the State level, instead of money being used for agencies and assistance centers and private organizations, administrative cost, paperwork, the money will be a single stream from the U.S. Federal Department of Education down to the local school districts. This means a tremendous savings, with more flexibility, more money, and more local control. Every State is held harmless 100 percent. There is an inflationary provision in the bill. And the result is the children of this Nation are going to win. Whatever the local teachers and parents decide is their need in spending education tax dollars, they can spend that money. And it might be spending money to make smaller class sizes, it might be for computers hooking up to the internet, microscopes, maps, globes, teachers' salaries, aids, equipment, books, supplies, whatever their priorities are is what they can use the money for. And so, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased that organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are saying this is going to be a key vote in how they rate Members. I think it really comes down to this: Who do we trust with our tax dollars? Our local teachers, our local educators, our local parents, or the bureaucracy, the Federal bureaucracy? I cast my vote for our children, our teachers, our parents on the local level. Support the Dollars to the Classroom Act.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, we have heard speakers from Kentucky, Tennessee; I see one from Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I enter into the Record letters which are unsolicited, expressing enthusiastic support from professional educators from Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas and several others. The letters referred to are as follows: Kentucky Association of Professional Educators, Lexington, KY, July 6, 1998. Hon. Joseph Pitts, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Pitts: On behalf of the members and board of directors of the Kentucky Association of Professional Educators (KAPE), I want to express enthusiastic support for H.R. 3248--Dollars to the Classroom Act. It is time that: a shift in how federal education dollars can be delivered to our nation's schools; dollars go directly to the classroom while giving states and local educators more funding options; teachers' hands not be tied with heavy regulations and tightly restricted grant programs; educators have greater flexibility to receive money for any of the authorized uses of the existing 31 programs; school districts are able to choose how federal money will be put into priority initiatives such as school safety, school technology, teacher improvement, and school reform. It is our hope that Republicans will be ready to counter the accusations that are sure to come, such as cutting education programs, gutting the U.S. Department of Education and hurting children. We hope you and the Republicans are prepared to aggressively prepare to respond with arguments outlining the real value and benefits of this act. We encourage your continued efforts in seeing this piece of legislation passed. Sincerely, Ruth Green, Executive Director.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. We have been working almost 2 years on this legislation and it is exciting to get to this point. I want to especially commend the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), for his tremendous leadership as he has shepherded this through committee and now brought this to the floor and fine-tuned the bill. He has done an outstanding job and all of our thanks go to him. Before getting to the specifics of the bill, I would like to just mention that the one thing that I am really looking forward to is going back to my district, and every Member can do this, and taking a check like this, because this check to the children of the 16th Congressional District represents money that is freed up from the bureaucracy that is consumed now by the Federal bureaucracy in all kinds of wasted tax dollars, and this money is going to be going directly through the States to the classrooms to these children in all of our schools around the Nation. This is a win for school children, for parents, for teachers, in every one of our districts. As we probably know, the Dollars to the Classroom Act will consolidate 31 Federal programs into a single flexible grant to the States with the requirement that 95 cents of every one of these Federal dollars gets to the classroom to be used on the priorities of the local teachers and parents, the local schools. It can be used for any one of those authorized 31 programs, but it can be used in the classroom for things such as teachers' salaries, teachers' aides, equipment, books, computer supplies, whatever their needs are. We know that the needs of one district are not necessarily the needs of another district, but they can be used according the local priorities. If they want to reduce classroom sizes, if they want to spend it on teaching reading, connecting the classroom to the Internet, whatever their needs are, they can use it all. It is estimated today by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and we did not consolidate all programs, we did not touch Title I, that is a very efficient program. We did not touch special ed, migrant ed, voc ed, but we took 31 programs, programs like Goals 2000, School-to-Work, we consolidated them. Those monies that are going to the local school districts are increased because of the flexibility and the reduced requirements for no paperwork, without the administrative requirements that are presently in place. This could mean an additional approximately $9,300 per school, approximately $425 per classroom. Every State wins. Every State is held harmless. So we are putting our children first, not the bureaucrats first. Now, look at this chart. Before the Dollars to the Classroom Act, there are the existing 31 programs with all kinds of funds being siphoned off at the Federal level, the State educational agencies, and finally getting down to the schools. After the Dollars to the Classroom Act, we have got a single grant stream directly through the States to the classroom. I would like to also mention that every State is held harmless, and we have an inflationary grant. This is an authorization bill. This is not an appropriations bill. Now, I understand the arguments about changing an appropriations bill. Whatever the appropriations level, this will get more of that money into the local classroom. So it comes down to this argument: Who do you trust with your tax dollars; your local teachers and parents or bureaucrats? I think all of us should stand with our local parents, teachers, principals and children, the real beneficiaries. Those who are in the place where the real learning takes place, who are going to be the beneficiaries of this bill, stand with them and not the bureaucrats. So I urge my colleagues to help send the dollars to the classroom by supporting the rule.