Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I have a few questions for the liberals on the other side. As usual, we will receive no answers, but it is our duty to the American people to ask them, just the same. Please tell us, my liberal defenders of the President's conduct, why was Senator Bob Packwood run out of town for his conduct? Why did liberal Democrat after liberal Democrat, including the current Vice President, denounce Senator John Tower as, and I quote, ``unfit for office'' because of allegations of womanizing? Will we receive answers to these questions? I doubt it. Why the double standard? Why one standard for Republicans and other for Democrats? Why was Justice Clarence Thomas absolutely vilified by feminist groups and liberals of every stripe for questionable allegations, while the current leader of the free world is given every possible excuse, justification, and defense for his conduct for a myriad of abuses, for numerous women providing evidence in a vast cover-up orchestration? Yes, questions for liberals, but no answers.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek support for our Nation's children to learn and our teachers to teach by supporting H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. This bill will send at least 95 cents of every Federal dollar for 31 K-through-12 education programs to our children's classrooms. That means that $2.7 billion will be taken from the grasp of bureaucrats and put into the hands of a teacher who knows our child's name. Mr. Speaker, that means that every classroom in America will get an additional $425 on an average of $9,300 per public school. I urge my colleagues to join this important effort to redistribute education tax dollars away from bureaucrats to students, parents and teachers. Instead of paying for reports, studies, and layers of bureaucracy, I ask my colleagues to pay for teachers' salaries, textbooks, computers and other supplies. Let us put our children first, let us put their education first, let us turn rhetoric into action by passing the Dollars to the Classroom Act before our children return to school next fall.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act. I served in the Pennsylvania legislature when we established the parental consent law for the specific purpose of keeping our young girls safe and under the authority of their parents especially for such a decision as an abortion. That law was specifically designed to prevent situations like the one that occurred in 1995 where a 12-year- old Pennsylvania girl became pregnant after sexual involvement with an 18-year-old man. As many of my colleagues have heard by now, this frightened 12-year-old was taken by the man's mother from Pennsylvania to New York, and in New York she underwent a painful and serious medical procedure and abortion. She had this abortion without her parents even knowing that she was pregnant. Yet abortion clinics in Pennsylvania's neighboring States, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, seek still to pedal their services through Pennsylvania newspapers and even to anyone who opens up a Pennsylvania phone book. Mr. Speaker, I brought a copy of an ad from the yellow pages in the capitol where I served in Harrisburg titled ``Abortion.'' Here it says: Hillcrest Women's Medical Center, and it gives a 1-800 number that can be called in Rockville, Maryland, and it specifically says: No parental consent. I have here a letter with me today from the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Mike Fisher. I would not call him a fanatic. He defended the judgment of the woman who interfered with the mother's custody of her child. Here is what he says. Quote: We must do what we can to ensure that a parent's right to be involved in their daughter's decision regarding abortion is protected. I will continue to protect the rights of parents throughout Pennsylvania by defending our parental consent laws. I respectfully urge you to protect the rights of parents across the Nation by supporting H.R. 3682. The legislation will help those of us in law enforcement protect vulnerable children by insuring that parents have a say in their child's decision. End quote. By passing the Child Custody Protection Act this body will take a clear stand against the bizarre notion that the U.S. Constitution confers a right upon strangers to take one's minor daughter across State lines for a secret abortion even when a State law specifically requires the involvement of a parent or a judge in the daughter's abortion decision. As moms and dads, it is our job to protect our young women, our daughters. The government should not allow our daughter's lives to be endangered by turning them over to strangers for serious medical procedures. Let us protect our States' rights, our parental authority, but, most importantly, let us protect our Nation's young women. Let us pass the Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, July 15, 1998, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting his Excellency Emil Constantinescu, President of Romania.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act, which this House will address tomorrow. It is time that we stand up for the safety of the daughters of this Nation as well as for the rights of the parents. I served in the Pennsylvania legislature when we passed the parental consent laws for the purpose of keeping our young girls safe and under the consent of their parents. Yet abortion clinics in Pennsylvania's neighboring States, New Jersey and Maryland, seek to peddle their services through Pennsylvania newspapers and even to anyone who opens a Pennsylvania phone book. By passing the Child Custody Protection Act this body will take a clear stand against the bizarre notion that the U.S. Constitution confers a right upon strangers to take one's minor daughter across State lines for a secret abortion, even when a State law specifically requires the involvement of a parent or judge in the daughter's abortion decision. The government should not allow our daughters' lives to be endangered by turning them over to strangers for serious medical procedures. Let us protect States' rights. Let us protect parental authority. And most importantly, let us protect our Nation's young women. Let us pass the Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about students. I would like to take a moment to recognize students who epitomize the phrase ``patriotism.'' This year I had the pleasure of nominating 37 young men and women from the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania to the four United States service academies. I am very pleased that 20 of these students were appointed to the academies. Next week those young men and women will start a journey, 4 years of study at premier institutions of higher learning, followed by active duty service in the U.S. Armed Forces. They will not only study academics but prepare themselves militarily and physically for service to the Nation as military officers. They are living proof of the phrase ``duty, honor, country,'' and they are tomorrow's leaders. Therefore, I would like to join their parents and friends in saluting these students.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will bring us back to the original purpose of the Food and Drug Administration. I rise to support the Coburn amendment. As originally intended, the FDA should make their priority ensuring the safety of food and developing medically necessary drugs. We simply must provide America with a system where life-saving drugs are made available to patients in a timely and effective manner. Mr. Chairman, when was the FDA given the task of making abortion on demand easier and more accessible? How does this action correspond with the assertion of the liberals that abortion should be a rare occurrence? Does not the FDA's current role in expediting the approval of abortifacients, which destroy lives, stand in direct contradiction to its responsibility to save them? Mr. Chairman, abortion pills make unwanted pregnancy the medical equivalent of a headache: pop a pill and it will go away. But there are serious consequences for women. New scientific evidence has indicated that abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer. This link should be carefully examined before any new forms of abortion are approved. But we cannot ensure the safety of women if the FDA is speeding abortion pills through the approval process. For the sake of women, we need to adopt the Coburn amendment. Just consider these facts. Ten out of the 11 studies on American women report an increased risk of breast cancer after having an induced abortion. A metaanalysis in which all worldwide data were combined, published by Dr. Joel Brind and fellow researchers, reported that an induced abortion elevates a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by 30 percent. Currently, breast cancer is the leading form of cancer among middle-aged American women. Mr. Chairman, it is time to send a message to the FDA: Return to the business of saving lives. If they truly care about the health of our Nation's women, Members will vote for the Coburn amendment and fight to keep women alive and well.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has been calling on Congress to start yet another Federal education program to hire 100,000 new teachers. If the President wants to hire teachers, then he should be ready to support H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. The Dollars to the Classroom Act sends 95 percent of the money for 31 Federal education programs directly to local schools. With the flexibility given in the Dollars to the Classroom Act, principals will be able to hire more teachers for America's schools, which our kids deserve. Our Nation's parents deserve for their education tax dollars to actually reach their child's classroom. Let us stop talking about hiring teachers. Let us actually make it possible by passing the Dollars to the Classroom Act. It is time we put children first in education by directing our tax dollars to the classroom.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about art. Today over 300 high school students from around the country will be recognized for their artistic abilities. It is my pleasure to recognize Grace Denenno, a student at Henderson High School in West Chester, Pennsylvania, as the winner from the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania of the congressional ``An Artistic Discovery'' program. Grace is here right now in the gallery with her parents. Grace's entry entitled ``Hey Babe, Happy Birthday,'' is a black and white pastel work that draws one to it through its expert application of shades and shadows. It is an example of God-given ability nurtured by the love of her craft. It is an example of what happens when students are allowed to pursue their talents. I encourage each Member and visitor to our Capitol this year to view all of the art work on display in the corridor between the Cannon Building and the Capitol. They will not be disappointed.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as the cochair of the Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, I rise today to discuss the importance of a faithful father. With Father's Day this Sunday, it is vital that we pause to thank the men across this country who have given time to their children, love them, discipline them and show their commitment to keeping a family together. When more than 50 percent of all adults agree that fathers today spend less time with their children than their own fathers did with them, this should cause us to pause. We must consider the reality that only if we spend time with our kids now will they desire time with us later. As Father's Day comes and goes again, we should resolve that the most important relationship we will ever cultivate will not be here in the halls of Congress, or over dinner downtown, or at a campaign fund- raiser, but will be the ones that develop in our own homes. To all those fathers who are working to be good dads: Keep up the valuable work that you are doing. Society and, most importantly, your own kids will say, ``Thank you.''

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of persecuted religious believers in Sudan. Mr. Faisal Abdallah, a 39-year-old Christian convert from Islam currently is imprisoned in Khobar Prison in Khartoum. Though accused of evangelism, Mr. Abdallah has not formally been charged with apostasy. Instead he has been charged with criminal violations of, and I quote, ``political conspiracy against the Khartoum regime.'' This charge requires the death penalty upon conviction. The Sudanese Government is attempting to force extremist Islam on the entire population of Sudan. Reports are that authorities beat, torture, sell into slavery, force to convert to Islam in exchange for food and force to fight against their own people, anyone who disagrees with the Khartoum government. Christians, Animists and moderate Muslims suffer terribly. Mr. Speaker, these horrifying atrocities must not continue. The Sudanese Government must be held to international human rights standards which protect religious and other fundamental freedoms.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask Members to help our Nation's children learn and teachers teach by supporting H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. This bill will send at least 95 cents of every Federal dollar for 30 K-through-12 education programs to our children's classrooms. That means that over $3 billion a year will be taken from the grasp of bureaucrats and put into the hands of a teacher who knows your child's name. Mr. Speaker, that means that every classroom in America will get over $500 more per year. Instead of paying for reports, studies, and layers of bureaucracy, our tax dollars should be used to pay for teachers' salaries, textbooks, computers, microscopes and maps. That is what this bill does. Last October the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, sense of the House resolution, passed overwhelmingly. Now, in 1998, we must put rhetoric into action by passing the Dollars to the Classroom Act into law before our children return to school next fall.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, confusing, cumbersome, complicated, intimidating. These are words that have been used to describe America's tax laws. Anyone who has prepared his or her own tax returns understands why many Americans are so intimidated by the Tax Code's complexity that they do not even try to prepare their own tax returns. If preparation of personal returns is difficult, preparing business returns is almost impossible unless, of course, we hire an army of highly trained professionals to assist us. Each year in America, taxpayers spend 5 billion man-hours and $225 billion preparing their tax returns. Mr. Speaker, that is why I have joined the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon) in cosponsoring the Tax Code Termination Act. This bill sunsets the Federal Tax Code as of December 31, 2002. Under our proposal, today's complicated Tax Code would expire and be replaced with a new Tax Code. It would ensure that America will have a new tax system for a new millennium. It should be lower, simpler, and flatter, one that the average person can finally understand.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that it has taken nuclear blasts in India and Pakistan to convince American leaders that it is time to put an end to our policy of mutually assured vulnerability. What I mean by this is that the United States is vulnerable to a missile attack. Many Americans are unaware of this. But if a missile were to be fired at American cities, the United States would be defenseless against it. Not only that, but this is the deliberate policy of the United States, to remain defenseless in the face of nuclear attack. But recent events in Pakistan and India should serve to force us to reconsider our policy of vulnerability in face of a missile attack. Recent reports that Communist China has 13 nuclear missiles aimed at the United States should reinforce the need for this reassessment. It is time to begin to build a national missile defense system. The security of our Nation is at stake.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today to reiterate the importance of fatherhood in this country. As one of the cofounders of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, I am pleased to recognize the significance of this resolution. Today, Members of Congress will commit to promoting the role that faithful, dedicated fathers play in the development of our young people and, indeed, of our Nation; and, how timely, for it is again that time of year when we honor our dads. In two Sundays, we will celebrate Father's Day, a day to acknowledge the special place which dads hold in our hearts, and recognize dad's role as father, husband, teacher, provider, care-giver, and friend. Although every American has a father, not every American has a dad, one whom they know, love, spend time with and trust. Because of this fact, our country has suffered. The United States is now the world's leader in fatherless families. This has taken its toll in our society, when you need no longer talk about the Dan Quayle versus Murphy Brown debate. And we have a litany of statistics supporting the position that a family unit with mother and father is an ideal environment for our children. The realities are staggering. Four in ten children who go to bed tonight will sleep in a home in which their fathers do not reside. Overall, nearly 2.5 million children will join the ranks of the fatherless this year. This is a sad commentary. We must each be committed to bringing this to an end. But this is not just about fatherlessness. We as a society must work to elevate the importance of fathers who value their commitments. Men across America struggle to be good dads. Many of us are co-laborers in this struggle. This is why we as elected officials must be the ones to lead by example, to take up the bully pulpit in order to effect change in this spirit of this country. Through the events of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force, we have sought to heighten the discussion of responsible fatherhood and emphasize the importance of fatherhood in neighborhoods and in community forums across the country. Working with the National Fatherhood Initiative, we are looking forward to the National Summit on Fatherhood next Monday. Leaders from across the country, from the highest levels of government here in Washington to sports figures such as Evander Holyfield, Michael Singletary and entertainment celebrities such as actor Tom Selleck, all will gather to honor the role of the father and to turn our momentum to action. We will gather at the J.W. Marriott next Monday for this fatherhood summit. All Members of Congress have been invited to take part in this event, and I hope many of them will come. The time has come for fathers to take hold of and be proud of their role as dad. In the words of filmmaker John Singleton, ``Any boy can make a baby; it takes a man to raise a son.'' The choice to place children above others is a noble one, and one which we as a society must recognize and reward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. In doing so, together, we can commit to promoting an office above all others in this country, that of the father. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the comments of the testimony that heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield recently gave to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and Workforce. He said, ``I, Evander Holyfield, did not meet my father until I was 21 years of age. I missed the advice, the guidance, and time that only a father can give. However, thanks to my mother, Annie Laura Holyfield, and my coach at the Warren Boys' Club in Atlanta, Carter Morgan, I was given the faith, determination, and perseverance that helped make the boy into the man and father I am today. ``Perhaps the absence of my own father, but the presence of a strong and moral father figure in my childhood has helped me realize how important fatherhood is. In fact, being an active and caring father to my sons and daughters is just as important as being the three-time heavyweight champion of the world.'' His wife spoke, and, finally, they said this: ``As father and mother to our children, even with the time constraints of our careers, we realize the importance of quality time with our children. Not only is this our obligation as parents, but it is also one of our greatest sources of joy. We especially stress the areas of faith and education with our children. We love them; and loving children requires not just good intentions and feelings, but also time and attention. ``We reiterate our strong feelings about this important issue. And with God's guidance and help, we will do our part in encouraging and elevating the status of fatherhood in America.''

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of persecuted religious believers in Burma also known as Myanmar. The Burmese Government engages in horrifying human rights violations against numerous religious and ethnic minorities. I met a few weeks ago with a group of Christians from Burma. Reports tell of one Karen family which fled Burma after the military forced the husband to help build a pipeline for the UNOCAL and TOTAL oil companies. The husband escaped the forced labor, but soldiers hunted him down, then tortured his wife and seriously burned their 2-month-old baby. The baby died, and the rest of the family fled to refugee camps in Thailand. This story is not unusual for the Karen and Chin peoples of Burma. Mr. Speaker, I have photographs which reflect the atrocities committed by the Burmese military forces. The photos show the murder of a Karen man and woman. They are too horrible to describe and show, but if any Member wishes to see them privately, they can come to my office. Human rights violations like this must not be allowed to continue. I urge the State Peace and Development Council to immediately cease these horrible human rights abuses.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Istook for his leadership on this issue; and I want to commend him for being willing to change his proposal from last session. He has put some new safeguards in there. It sounds as if some of the Members are arguing against his proposal from last session and that they have not read this one. Frankly, it is quite unfortunate that we must even have this debate today here in America, the most free country of the world. Yet it has come to the point that a primary aspect of our freedom, our right to practice the religion of our choice, is no longer afforded to everyone. We are talking here about free speech protection for students; and we are talking about student-initiated, not teacher-initiated, not government, not school-sponsored prayer, but voluntary, student- initiated right to free religious speech. Just as they have protection on political speech or philosophical speech, they should have the right to the protection for religious speech. What we have proclaimed throughout the world now must be practiced here in the United States. Madam Speaker, the Religious Freedom Amendment is needed today to correct and clarify 36 years of Supreme Court decisions which have warped the plain and simple meaning, original meaning, of the Constitution as far as religious rights being protected under the first amendment are concerned. The Religious Freedom Amendment simply states that individuals in this land have a constitutional right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of their conscience. It states specifically, and I quote, ``neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion,'' end quote. Yet although the United States cannot establish an official religion, neither should it prevent its people from this free exercise; and that is why people of all faiths can support this amendment. This amendment would in no way infringe on an individual's rights to pray or not to pray. The amendment would, however, support the opportunity that people in this country have to practice their beliefs and even to recognize their religious heritage or traditions on public property. Even though the Religious Freedom Amendment allows students to initiate school prayer explicitly, it does not permit the government or its agents to dictate that a prayer be given or dictate any contents of a prayer. Schools should be able to simply permit prayer, voluntary prayer, to occur, much like that which is practiced in this body, right here in this Chamber. The Religious Freedom Amendment follows the same standard which the Supreme Court applied to the Pledge of Allegiance. That is, no student can be compelled to take part, but those who do not want to participate are not permitted to censure and silence those who do. Madam Speaker, this goes to the heart of the first amendment rights. It goes to the heart of who we are as a people in America. We are, after all, one nation under God. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge the Members to support this amendment which would practice freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist to know that helping Communist China with its rocket technology is not in our national interest. According to published reports, the Pentagon concluded in a May 1997 report that ``national security has been harmed'' by the transfer of sensitive computer technology to Communist China's military industrial complex. Where is that May 1997 Pentagon report, you may ask? Well, here is another key document, a document with critical information that Congress does not possess and which Congress has been told we will never see. What has the White House response been about this May 1997 Pentagon report? Denials, explanations? No. We get silence. Or we get spin. Silence and spin. That is about all the American people get anymore. However, this crisis is about national security. This issue puts every American at risk. This makes the world a more dangerous place to live. It is a very serious issue. We deserve a full report.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for his eloquence. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for his leadership on this issue. It is a real honor to join the gentlemen this evening to discuss really one of the number one 1998 budget goals for many Members of this Congress, and that is the repeal of the marriage penalty tax. As many of us have realized, and most Americans I think recognized long ago, the marriage penalty tax works against the very fundamental institution that we claim is the center of our social fabric, the family. How paradoxical that marriage, the very foundation of our social structure, is currently undermined in our Federal Tax Code. Our current Tax Code, instead of being fair to a husband and wife who both work full-time, places an unnecessary burden on married couples solely for the fact they are married. Under the current code, had this man and woman chosen to live together and file separately, they would not be punished by the Tax Code. This is just plain wrong, and it is warped. For instance, in my office alone, within 1 year, I have four staff members getting married. None of these individuals is living with his or her fiance before they get married. All eight of these young people are young professionals. All eight of them are paying individual income taxes to the Federal Government. But when these eight individuals choose to wed, when each one of them chooses to become a husband or a wife, automatically, by the very virtue of that decision, they will suffer under the tax status by which they file because they are choosing marriage. They are doing the right thing. But our Tax Code, in effect, tells them to do something else. If our Tax Code can speak, it would tell them that it is financially better for them if they refrain from making that marriage commitment. Our Tax Code essentially encourages two professional individuals to remain unmarried. What is the financial cost here? Couples such as those I mentioned will pay an average of $1,400 a year in higher taxes due to the marriage penalty. In 1996, 21 million married couples were affected. And this must come to an end. So we must press for this budget agreement that includes $100 billion in tax relief for our married couples. It is time that our Tax Code reflects this Nation's emphasis on the social virtue and the value of marriage. It is inconceivable that our tax policy should discourage the very fundamental unit of society, family and marriage, but that is what it does. As our budget negotiations continue, as we seek continued and lasting tax relief for the American people, a repeal of the marriage penalty tax must be part of that mix. What may appear to be a seemingly small penalty hidden within the Tax Code harms in a very large way the institution on which we have based our society, the family. So elimination of the marriage penalty restores tax fairness. It increases take-home pay for families. It strengthens marriage and families. It helps working women. It is the right thing to do, to repeal the marriage penalty tax. On the comment in question that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) mentioned previously, if we look historically at the growth of government, the rate of government spending, I think if you will look back 5 years, we have spent about $7.8 trillion on the Federal Government. Looking ahead for 5 years, it is proposed that we spend $9.1 trillion. All we are doing with this marriage penalty tax is just moving that $9.1 trillion to $9.0 trillion. In other words, we are just saving 1 penny on the dollar. There is no better way to give tax relief to the American family than to repeal the marriage penalty tax.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, some of the most important laws we pass in this body are those that strengthen America's families. For that reason it is imperative that the House move immediately to curtail activity which undermines a relationship so vital to the future of this country: the parent-child relationship. The Child Custody Protection Act, legislation which makes it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines for an abortion in order to circumvent that State's parental involvement laws, does just that. This act supports laws already in place in 22 States, States that reinforce the authority of parents, requiring parental or judicial notification before a young girl seeks an abortion. Mr. Speaker, while the pregnancy of a young girl is an extremely difficult situation, these young women are exactly those who parental consent State laws are in place to protect. Those who wish to undermine parental authority are aiding in the breakdown of the family. This cannot be allowed to continue. Congress has a responsibility to support laws that strengthen, not weaken families.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern over an increase in religious intolerance in the country of Belgium. In 1997, the Belgian parliament published a Sect Report which branded Evangelical Christians, Pentecostals, Amish, Charismatics, and other Evangelical mission groups as potentially dangerous sects. In addition, the Belgian parliamentary report also targeted Catholic Charismatics. Former King of Belgium, Baldwyn I, who was known to be close to the Charismatic movement inside the Catholic church, was even attacked on the front page of a daily newspaper. The Belgian Sect Report was followed by legislation on April 30 this year which established a Sect Observatory. Mr. Speaker, its highly disturbing that a government which abides by the Helsinki Accords, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, should violate these agreements by establishing a government network to monitor the religious activity of law-abiding citizens. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental right of religious liberty must be protected for all people, including those in Western Europe.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, marriage, the very foundation of American social structure, is currently undermined by our American Federal Tax Code. That is right. Our current Tax Code, instead of being friendly to a husband and wife who both work full-time, places a tax penalty on them solely for the fact that they are married. Under the Tax Code, had this man and woman chosen to live together and file separately, they would not be punished with higher taxes. Mr. Speaker, this is just plain wrong. Our tax policy should encourage family formation in marriage, not discourage it. As our budget negotiations begin and as we seek tax relief for the American people, a repeal of the marriage tax penalty should be a part of the mix. This penalty hidden within the Tax Code harms the very institution on which we have built our society, our family. Let us repeal the marriage tax penalty once and for all.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of a person imprisoned because of his religious beliefs in Pakistan. Recently, a Pakistani Christian, Ayub Masih, was sentenced to death under Pakistan's blasphemy law. In Pakistan, no one has yet been officially executed under the blasphemy law. However, extremists have killed a number of accused believers. On May 6, 1998, human rights activist Bishop John Joseph allegedly committed suicide to protest the blasphemy law and Masih's death sentence. Although the Pakistani Constitution protects freedom of religion, the blasphemy law contradicts the constitution and a number of international human rights standards. Mr. Speaker, every person, every country in the world should have this fundamental human right, the freedom of religion. I urge the Pakistani Government to acquit Mr. Ayub Masih and release him from prison with full protection of his rights and to protect him and his family.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in a way, the stonewalling done by the hear no evil, see no evil Members on the Committee on House Oversight is a good thing, but only in a political sense. Hear no evil, see no evil Members refused to grant immunity to four key witnesses in the campaign finance investigations, even though the Justice Department does not oppose the granting of immunity to these four witnesses so that their testimony may be heard. The behavior of the hear no evil, see no evil Members is an insult to millions of proud Democrats who do believe in the rule of law, who do believe that politicians should be held accountable for their behavior, and who do believe that truth matters more than polls, more than spin, more than political gain. The truth will eventually come out, the truth about which Members sought the truth, and which Members did everything in their power to prevent the truth from ever seeing the light of day.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, consider this. You have the person who was the third highest position at the Justice Department, who cheated his partners out of a half million dollars, who then cheated the taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and who admits out loud on tape, and I quote, ``I need to roll over one more time.'' For the hear- no-evil, see-no-evil Members, I will say that again. Web Hubbell says to his wife on tape, ``I need to roll over one more time.'' One more time? This will be truly puzzling to the other side, perhaps, who act as if they are unfamiliar with the language of cover- up, the language of a person who needs to keep silent to protect his friends. One more time? Is it possible that Mr. Hubbell is referring to his refusal to tell Judge Starr what he knows in order to protect the White House? Roll over? Perhaps Mr. Hubbell means that he will have to take the hit, accept jail time one more time if that is what it takes to protect his friends.