Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I try to watch the network news every day. I watch some of the political talk shows that cover the strange world of Washington, D.C. I keep waiting to see some discussion of 18 U.S. Code, section 1503. Most people are not lawyers, but there are a lot of lawyers out there, including a lot of journalists, who know perfectly well what 18 U.S. Code, section 1503 means. It is a criminal statute that absolutely prohibits government employees from interfering in a Federal investigation. Government employees may not attempt to influence, obstruct or impede a Federal investigator. This is not a controversial law. It is obvious that one may not impede or interfere in any way with a Federal investigation. Mafia dons may try it, but a person conducting a smear campaign to intimidate or discredit judicial officials is in violation of the law. It is not even a debatable issue. Due process must proceed without interference immediately, period.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to focus attention on the situation facing minority religious believers in Pakistan. Although the country's constitution upholds religious freedom, section 295(c) of the penal code states that defiling the sacred name of Mohammed is punishable by death. Unfortunately, reports suggest that some Pakistanis use this law, which carries with it a mandatory death penalty, to falsely accuse Christians of blasphemy. Let me illustrate with several photographs. The first photograph reveals a young woman sitting in the midst of the destruction caused when the government bulldozed the Christian church and surrounding community buildings. The second photograph shows the view of Reverend Noor Alam, a Christian clergyman lynched by extremists recently in Pakistan. The next photograph depicts the treatment of Pakistani Christians who protested last year's destruction of churches in Shantinagar. Members can see the ropes around their necks. Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and should be protected by all governments of the world, including the government of Pakistan.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the massive human rights abuses occurring in Sudan. The Khartoum Government, the National Islamic Front, is waging a war on the Christian and Animist South. The Northern army has committed horrifying atrocities against individuals and communities, including moderate Muslims who do not adhere to the Khartoum agenda. Women and children are sold into slavery. Young boys are conscripted to combat their own villages. Pastors often are thrown into wells, doused with oil, and lit on fire to burn to their death. Much of the humanitarian aid in Sudan is distributed through Khartoum Government forces, who force conversion to extremist Islam in exchange for food. On May 23, 1997, Northern authorities detained and imprisoned Mr. Faisal Abadallh, a Sudanese Christian accused of evangelism. In January of 1998, authorities charged Mr. Abadallh with 12 offenses, three of which could lead to the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, the President acted wisely in imposing sanctions on Sudan in 1997. However, we must not leave the issue at that point. It is outrageous that this terrible suffering continues. Our Nation should continue to speak out.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to draw attention to the human rights abuses taking place in Indonesia. As many of my colleagues know, Indonesia is experiencing tremendous economic and social upheaval. In the ensuing panic, the people and government have tagged the Christian and ethnic Chinese minority as the scapegoats for these societal ills. As a result, massive human rights violations have occurred. Mobs have shut down Christian church services and burned down places of worship. Between February 14 and 17 alone, rioters destroyed the property of 29 churches. Churches gathered to find their musical instruments, benches, bibles, church documents and entire buildings destroyed. Mr. Speaker, the extremists are not the only perpetrators of human rights abuses. Government authorities allegedly participate in the violence and abuses by failing to protect the churches and communities from attackers. By doing nothing in response to these violations, the government implicitly collaborates with extremist groups and builds anti-Christian sentiment. This is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, we should not look the other way while such blatant human rights violations occur in Indonesia. I urge Mr. Mondale to raise these issues during his meetings with Mr. Suharto and the Government of Indonesia to take steps immediately to protect these minorities from abuse.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a tragic story of an outrageous misuse of U.S. taxpayer dollars believed to go to foreign aid. Recently a government campaign in the country of Peru revealed how USAID taxpayer dollars have been used over the past 2 years. What were these dollars used for, you ask: Community buildup, economic development, money to buy clean, sanitary medical conditions? No. Our taxpayer dollars have been put to use under the USAID banner for 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 families and husbands? No. Without notification and without consent, U.S.-funded operatives perform these sterilizations in filthy, primitive conditions just to meet a mandated quota. Women have been degraded. Indeed, women have died because of this policy in the name of population control, and under the guise of family planning America has exported horror to women abroad. Mr. Speaker, Congress should end taxpayer funding of such atrocities, once and for all.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise to bring an egregious example of Federal education waste to Members' attention. Through the Department of Education we funded an education study entitled, and I quote, ``Channeling Your Donna Reed Syndrome.'' Since when does the 1950s television ideal wife and mother have anything to do with teaching kids basic math, reading, writing, science, and history? As part of this education study, we learned the ``Four Affirmations We Should Say Daily: 1, I am competent; 2, I am attractive; 3, I am respected; 4, I own this day.'' While American schoolchildren lag behind the rest of the developed world in basic academic skills, our Federal education dollars are paying for the recitation of daily affirmation concepts. Instead of funding studies like this one, I urge Members to cosponsor the Dollars to the Classroom Act, which block grants 30 Federal education programs to States, requiring that at least 95 percent of the funds be made available for classroom activity.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Rush Limbaugh, in an interview with the very distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) asked why would Bill Clinton defend the IRS? Let us think about that. Why would Bill Clinton defend the IRS? If my colleagues recall when the President was confronted with hearings this past month which exposed the incredible abuse of power that seems to be a way of doing business over at the IRS, his first reaction almost instinctively was to defend the IRS. His first reaction was to say that things are really not that bad, and he criticized the Republican reform plan. Of course, that was until he saw the polls that the American people were having none of it, that they have known for years that the IRS suffers from heavy-handed tactics, sloppiness and lack of accountability. This last point is the key point. Any agency or bureaucrat that lacks accountability will, over time, abuse its power. The Republican IRS reform proposal would inject real accountability into the IRS, and make the audit process accountable to an outside review body for the first time ever. It is long overdue.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker; Clinton business partners Jim and Susan McDougal; former Arkansas Judge David Hale; former Associate Attorney General and Rose Law firm partner of Hillary Clinton and golfing partner, Webb Hubbell; Arkansas businessman Eugene Fitzhugh; Arkansas businessman Charles Matthews; Arkansas appraiser Robert Palmer; Whitewater real estate agent Chris Wade; Arkansas banker Neal Ainley; former top Clinton aide Stephen Smith; Arkansas Little Rock developer Larry Kuca; and Arkansas businessman William J. Marks, Sr., 13 people either convicted or pleaded guilty. I wonder how these people feel when they hear over and over again from James Carville and the Clinton attack machine, who defend ethical outrages that Judge Starr's investigations have ``turned up nothing.'' White House tactics bring to mind a tactic known to every trial lawyer: When you have the facts, argue the facts; when you have the law, argue the law; when you have neither the facts nor the law, attack the prosecutor. Nothing to show? Maybe Judge Starr's attackers might want to ask those 13 people what they think.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Pennsylvania's West Chester University, a pioneer teacher training institution, has been blazing new trails to lead students toward greater enthusiasm for math and the sciences. The vehicle for this effort? An Educational Center for Earth Observation Systems. March 11-13 this year, West Chester University will host the eleventh annual `Satellites and Education'' Conference for teachers as part of this program. West Chester's innovative program has attracted thousands of elementary, middle and high school educators by focusing on inexpensive ``hands on'' classroom exercises that enable students to participate in actual satellite communications and earth observations. While serving in the Pennsylvania State Legislature I was pleased to be an early advocate of this innovative experiment in educational leadership. I have also been proud to serve as Chairman of the Satellite Educators Association, an outgrowth of West Chester University's novel approach to science instruction composed of teachers and school system supporters across the nation. Each year the University hosts its ``Satellites and Education'' Conference for teachers during Pennsylvania's ``Spaces Satellite and Technology Week,'' an observance established by a Special Resolution of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The tenth anniversary conference was attended by more than 300 students, educators, and federal and state scientists, from 25 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, Finland, Indonesia and Japan. Enthusiastic sponsors and exhibitors were Lockheed-Martin, DuPont Aerospace, Hughes Aircraft Corp., National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Center for Rural PA, Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium, Accu-Weather Inc., Analytical Graphics Inc., Aquila Systems Inc., Center for Image Processing in Education, Civil Air Patrol, Maryland Space Grant Consortium, Orbital Sciences Corporation, PCI Enterprises Inc., Sargent Welch, Satellite Educators Association, Service Argos, and The Wether Underground. Keynote speaker at the 1997 conference was Dr. Mary Cleav, NASA Aeronaut who is now managing NASA's Sea WiFS Program. Exciting Ocean-color images for the Sea viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (Sea WiFS)--the first readily available ocean-color data in more than ten years--should play a major role in studying El Nino and other global warming research. Other speakers included Dr. Michael Hanes, former Dean of West Chester's School of Education and now president of Georgia Southwestern University; Helen Martin, President, Satellite Educators Association; Tom Pyke, Director of Project GLOBE, the international youth environmental study program; Dr. Ronald McPherson, President American Meteorological Society; Robert Winokur, NOAA Assistant Administrator in charge of the National Weather Service's 4.5 billion modernization program; Dr. Shelby Tilford, Chief Scientist, Orbital Sciences Corporation; Dr. Perry Samson, Director of the Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Science Program at the University of Michigan. The 1998 program will be equally outstanding. The day conference offers many workshop sessions where educators and government and industry experts exchange ideas, with students as kibitzers, to evaluate instructional materials, equipment and techniques. A popular feature of the conference is the distribution of dozens of door prizes useful to teachers. These have been contributed by supporting industries and other vendors including a complete Aquila system for receiving earth images from satellites. Primary objects of these conferences are: To introduce educators to satellite and related technologies; to demonstrate equipment affordable to educators and help teachers employ them in the classroom; to examine successful programs for integration into math/science curricula; to provide mentor-ship and follow-up activities for teachers; to network locally and globally with educators who have successfully incorporated satellite applications into their curricula; and to conduct concurrent workshop sessions dealing with the Internet applications for various computer systems, as well as to show students how to assemble and operate satellite receiving stations. I know my colleagues will applaud and join me as I offer congratulations to Dr. Madeleine Alser, President of West Chester University; Dr. Michael Hanes, President of Georgia Southwestern University; Nancy McIntyre, Director of the West Chester University's Educational Center for Earth Observation Systems; Helen Martin, President of the Satellite Educators Association; and sponsoring government agencies and corporations for their efforts to help young people, and especially to the many far-sighted educators who have participated over the years in this educational success story.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, what would you call a leader that wants to begin spending money before he even has it? Irresponsible? Liberal? Slick? Well, the budget just submitted by the President calls for spending on 39 new big government programs with tax revenues that the government does not yet have. Using the usual sleight of hand, the President's budget makes assumptions about billions of dollars from a tobacco settlement that does not even exist. Spending money based on tax increases that do not even exist adds new meaning to the expression tax and spend liberal. Now we have a liberal who spends first and hopes that a tooth fairy Congress will give him a tax increase later. Mr. Speaker, the middle class has gotten the shaft long enough. The middle class is tired of promising something for everyone and sticking their families with the bill. Mr. President, do not break the balanced budget agreement with these new big government spending programs and entitlement expansions. It is time to say no to more big government.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, here is a big surprise: The wife of John Huang has joined the growing legions of people under investigation for campaign finance lawbreaking who have either fled the country, taken the fifth amendment, or otherwise come up with amnesia about raising money from foreign citizens. This is not big news to most of the major media, of course. After all, it appears that most of the time all they do is read their nightly newscast straight off DNC press releases. In fact, I have a hard time telling the difference between liberal reporting on the campaign finance hearings and what the expert ``spinmeisters'' at the White House are saying. We have heard some great excuses, from ``everybody does it,'' to ``we had to cheat. Otherwise, Republicans would have won.'' Maybe some of the best excuses are these two: ``Sure, I broke the law, but it is the system's fault, and we need to reform it.'' Then there is this one: ``I don't care if they broke the law. The Republicans are on a witch hunt.'' Right. I wonder if the reforms the other side has in mind will continue to consider taking foreign money as a crime.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Lancaster Laboratories, a company in Lancaster, PA, recognized in the October issue of Working Mother magazine as one of the 100 best companies for working moms. Even through the transition that Lancaster Labs has undergone over the past few years, this family-begun business has not only kept its emphasis on quality, but it once again has proved to be a successful company which values the family. By believing that a company can be committed to providing state-of-the-art services, and still manage people in a way that accommodates the hectic and activity-laden lives of working mothers and fathers, Lancaster Labs has succeeded in keeping their dedicated employees. Lancaster Labs has been measured against standards of child care, flexibility, pay, opportunities to advance, and other family-friendly benefits. Although the company came out strong on each one of these, it is not because they attempted to meet some arbitrary yardstick, but because Lancaster Labs believes in creating a company that has fairness and family at the core of its existence. With fair pay, advancement for women, onsite child care, and the promotion of adoption, Lancaster Labs is an exemplary and prosperous part of our community. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate this exceptional company for its holistic approach to the working environment. Many companies would be wise to learn from the Lancaster Labs' example, which says that enhancing the lives of working moms can significantly improve the overall performance of the company. I wish the very best to Lancaster Labs in the future.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, when was the last time you heard the argument that changing the law or passing a new law will make people who break the law honest? Well, yesterday, if you count what we hear in this Chamber. The fact is the DNC, friends of the White House, and close aides in this administration have been caught red-handed doing things that they know are illegal: Taking foreign money, laundering money, laundering union money, raising money on Government property, shaking down Indian tribes for money, raising money at Buddhist temples, covering for political operatives who have fled from this country, selling the Commerce Department trade missions, selling access to the White House and on and on. All these things are wrong, they are illegal, and they are dishonest. My suspicion is that the same people who have been caught behaving in an unethical, illegal, and dishonest manner are not going to suddenly become public officials who can be trusted with a new law. What do you think?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to urge Members to support H.R. 2570, the Forced Abortion Condemnation Act. This bill would deny a visa to any Chinese official who carries out forced abortion or sterilization and condemns those in the Chinese Communist Party who oversee and enforce this process. Women all over China are victimized daily due to their ability and desire to bear children. I would like to share just one story with my colleagues today that I believe demonstrates the need for this bill. When Steven Mosher, a Ph.D. candidate at the time, attended a family planning meeting at Equality Commune in China, he observed some of these coercive procedures. Mosher writes, ``From Sandhead Brigade there were 18 women, all 5 to 9 months pregnant, many red-eyed from lack of sleep and crying. They sat listlessly on short plank benches arranged in a semicircle about the front of the room where He Kaifeng, a commune cadre and Communist Party member of many years of experience in mass meetings, explained the purpose of the meeting in no uncertain terms.'' His message to the women was anything but reassuring. He said, slowly and deliberately, ``None of you has any choice in this matter. The two of you who are 8 or 9 months pregnant will have a Caesarean. The rest of you will have a shot which will cause you to abort.'' In order to be allowed to return home to their families, the women had to agree to abort their babies no matter how far along their pregnancies were. Mr. Speaker, this is not family planning. Forced abortions are outright human rights abuses. I do not believe that this is a pro-life or pro-choice issue. This is a human issue. It is an issue of blatant governmental abuse. The United States must not in any way be a part of it. We, as Members of Congress, must agree that China's so-called population control techniques are inhumane. We have a moral obligation to play absolutely no part in assisting such abominable abuse of women and their families. My colleagues, listen to the cries of these women in China. Acknowledge their grief. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2570.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, just 3 days ago President Clinton told Virginia voters what he really thinks about Americans who favor tax cuts. He called them selfish, as this headline illustrates. When I heard that, I realized that this is actually a part of a pattern, and that I really should not have been surprised. So I went back, did a little research, and discovered that many other prominent Members of his party do believe exactly that, that it is selfish of people to think that they should get to keep more of what they have worked so hard to earn. The Deputy Secretary of the Treasury said, ``There is no case other than selfishness,'' about those who want to reduce the death tax. A few days later he was forced to retract that statement, but only last month minority leader in the Senate Tom Daschle told Americans that he does not think many people are overtaxed, and now President Clinton goes on record with his vision of Americans and tax cuts. Of course, he will soon go back on his words and clarify what he really meant to say. I think that that will not be necessary.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman who said there was no evidence or substantiation, let me quote from the testimony that she should have heard when the hearing was held before the committee. A quote from Lisa Graham Keegan, the Arizona State Superintendent, who said Federal funds account for 10 percent of the education funding, but 50 percent of their paperwork burden. Dr. Charles Garris, superintendent of Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, my own district, came and presented testimony, talking about Federal funds only. He said that even at the local level, after the administrative overhead from the Federal, at the local level, 25 percent of the funds never reach the students that they were intended to serve, and he detailed the expenditure of those funds. Then he had a stack of papers, an application for a Federal grant. He put it down and he said, ``This takes 5 months to apply, and still, after 5 months of applying, going through 216 steps, we don't know whether we will get any. I will not even apply.''

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me today to stand before the House to support the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, an initiative I have been working on since early this year. As a former high school math and science teacher in public schools and because my own children have been educated in public schools, I know of the importance of America's public schools. With this background, I rise today in strong support of America's public schools and the students that attend them each day. Today the House will have a chance to strongly support public education when we vote on the Dollars to the Classroom resolution. The Dollars to the Classroom resolution urges that we get at least 90 percent of Federal education tax dollars to the classroom, to the individual who knows the name of each child. This could mean an additional $1,800 in public classrooms across America. Do my House colleagues realize that currently we are wasting billions of education tax dollars each year? Let me give Members an example of this waste. The Department of Education funds tens of thousands of publications, 21,922 to be exact, that are available for each of us to purchase, for a fee I might add. There are 140 studies on checklists that are listed. There are 13 studies on welding. There are 260 studies on surveys. There are 26 studies on camping. There are close to 100 studies on education researchers researching their research techniques. There are three studies entitled ``Cement: The Concrete Experience.'' I would rather empower teachers to buy books for classrooms than to fund studies on cement. In short, the question is, do we fund bureaucrats or books? A vote against the Dollars to the Classroom resolution is really a vote for the bureaucracy. We do not want to become so entrenched in the beltway mindset that we have forgotten why we are here. Let me take a minute to remind my colleagues. We are here for kids like Melissa who writes, and I quote, ``My social studies book was new in 1988. Hey, it's 1997. We need to get new books.'' And Glenisha who says, and I quote, ``I support this bill because it seems as if people are taking our parents for granted, because they're paying taxes which they assume are to schools, but most of the money doesn't make it to the classroom where it should be. We should have had this bill a long time ago.'' Mr. Speaker, if Members will not take my word for it, at least listen to the children who attend public schools across America each day, or listen to the teachers. Helen Martin, a teacher in the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District in Pennsylvania stated this: ``It is very frustrating to see so much tax money go to Washington for education and not to see funds in the classroom that have been appropriated for education. Please return more education tax dollars directly to the students of our Nation who will become the scientists, business people and lawmakers of the 21st century.'' Mr. Speaker, I beg Members to not turn a deaf ear to the children and the teachers of our Nation. Let us get America's hard earned tax dollars away from beltway bureaucrats and into the classroom. Let us use the money for books, computers, maps, microscopes, and teachers. It is our choice. We have a vote today that will impact America's kids. We have a moral responsibility to drastically improve our current education system for our children. If we are really serious about supporting public schools, the choice is clear. Vote for the Dollars to the Classroom resolution. Vote for the kids in the public education system. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the RECORD: Moving Dollars to the Classroom (By Representative Joseph Pitts) ``People are taking our parents for granted, because they're paying taxes which they assume are to schools, but most of the money doesn't make it to the classroom where it should be''--5th Grader Glenisha Danyelle McLellan Glenisha's statement is undeniable--a significant portion of federal education dollars do not make it into classrooms. In the midst of rapidly growing federal education budget, the actual amount of funds making it into classrooms--where the fundamental basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic are taught--is being siphoned off by an increasingly large Washington-based education bureaucracy. As a former high school math and science teacher, I have seen and experienced first-hand the funding shortfalls many schools face each year. Some have tartered textbooks dating back more than a decade. In many urban areas, teachers lack the funds to buy basic necessities such as new crayons, pencils and paper for their students. Year after year, thousands of teachers nationwide--in affluent and poor districts alike--are not given the proper resources to conduct the necessary classroom experiments that facilitate the learning process. After one studies this ``resource gap'' in our nation's classrooms, it becomes abundantly clear that the answer to these problems does not lie in increased education funding. Indeed, the problem in education is not how much we spend, but how we spend it. By propping up bureaucracies instead of providing local schools, teachers and parents with the resources they need, we have failed our nation's children. In his most recent State of the Union address, President Clinton declared that education would be his ``number one priority for the next four years.'' Mr. Clinton should fulfill that commitment by working to ensure that a very high percentage of every federal dollar spent on education is channeled directly to a classroom, instead of remaining in the seemingly endless labyrinth of programs which originate in Washington, DC. This goal is one that has already been embraced by Republicans. At present, it is unknown exactly what percentage of federal education dollars reach the classroom. What is known, however, is that the federal education bureaucracy is a multi-layered behemoth that saps up billions of dollars that are desperately needed in America's classrooms. As part of the effort of the Republican majority to ensure that more dollars are directed into classrooms, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has initiated a far- reaching project--``Education at a Crossroads: What Works? What Is Wasted?''--to evaluate the extent and quality of federal involvement in education. Led by Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the Committee has unearthed a federal education bureaucracy consisting of 760 different programs in 40 separate departments and agencies, costing taxpayers more than $100 billion a year (1997 figures). Currently, the federal government spends approximately $15.4 billion on elementary and secondary education programs. The best estimate suggests that about $5.4 billion never reaches the classroom. Instead, this money is consumed by numerous layers of administration, paperwork, publications, studies, and an intensive grant application process. This federal bureaucracy, coupled with the waste endemic in many state education bureaucracies, results in fewer and fewer dollars actually reaching the classroom. For instance, a recent audit of New York City public schools found that only 43 percent of the local education budget reached the classroom. The Wall Street Journal has reported (3/27/96) that 24.6% of U.S. public education spending (federal, state, and local) goes to non-teaching personnel. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) is chock full of examples of wasteful spending. In many cases, programs and policies can be eliminated, thus freeing up more resources to be utilized directly by those actually doing the teaching. Two prime examples are the USDE's voluminous collection of ``studies,'' and the time-consuming grant process. While there are certainly other problem areas that need a close examination, these two serve as effective ``case studies.'' Cement: The Concrete Experience According to the USDE, it ``publishes a wealth of information for teachers, administrators, policymakers, researchers, parents, students, and others with a stake in education.'' A recent search of the USDE's Home Page on the World Wide Web found that the database currently contains descriptions of 21,922 different studies published since 1980. The subjects covered in these reports span the horizon, ranging from Eskimos to cement. A brief, and by no means comprehensive, examination of the list of studies reveals: 1767 studies on career planning; 140 studies on check lists; Nearly 100 studies on education researchers researching their research techniques; 260 studies on surveys; 3 studies on ``Cement: The Concrete Experience''; and 82 studies on calculators. And that is just a small fraction of a small sampling of the publications available. Additionally, these reports are not available for free; the USDE charges a fee for each report, so those wondering what ``Cement: The Concrete Experience'' is all about must pay to find out. This is a tragic waste of taxpayer dollars. Not only are the bureaucrats in Washington consuming money that could be directed to local schools to fund studies on all- too-often irrelevant topics, but the USDE then forces teachers to use limited classroom resources to purchase copies of the few studies that may prove useful. This dizzying logic lends an insight into the USDE's funding priorities. As President Herbert Hoover once noted: ``In all bureaucracies there are three implacable spirits-- self-perpetuation, expansion, and incessant demand for more power.'' Indeed. Grant Process: 21 Weeks, 216 Steps Another frustrating example of waste in the federal education system is the extraordinarily long grant application process teachers across the country must endure. The USDE has made applying for a grant so complicated that many teachers never even bother, feeling the benefits (the money) don't outweigh the costs (countless lost hours). Teachers who do choose to try to secure federal grants must waste hours upon hours on an application process that takes 21 weeks and churns through no less than 216 tedious steps of bureaucratic red tape. And that's just to apply for a grant. In the end, there is no guarantee of actually receiving the funds. Interestingly enough, the aforementioned 21 week process involving 216 steps was recently highlighted by the USDE as a significant accomplishment. Previously, the grant process involved more than 400 steps and took an additional 5 weeks. While the new ``shortened'' process should certainly be applauded, it is a long, long way from satisfactory. The USDE also recently highlighted additional steps it has taken to make the Department more efficient and more effective. One achievement so noted was a reduction in the paperwork burden imposed by the federal education establishment by 10 percent or 5.4 million hours. However, even with this improvement, 48.6 million hours of paperwork is still required by USDE policies. That amounts to the equivalent of 24,300 employees, working 40 hours per week, for an entire year. Again, the recent improvements are welcomed, but there is a long, long way to go. The USDE ``studies'' and grant process are just two examples of areas where we must demand a better return on our education dollar. Furthermore, I have no doubt that Chairman Hoekstra and other members of the subcommittee will uncover additional areas ripe for reform as they continue working on the Education at a Crossroads project. $1,800 for Every Classroom in America Considering the funding shortfalls many teachers experience, and having identified an enormously large and wasteful bureaucracy, it seems that an important policy initiative would be working to move more dollars directly into classrooms, while spending less on propping up the establishment in Washington. One proposal that would move policy in this direction is the ``Dollars to the Classroom'' resolution, which calls on the USDE to send 90 percent of the money it earmarks for elementary and secondary education directly into classrooms. While the federal government actually funds a relatively small portion of elementary and secondary education (federal spending represents about six percent of total education spending in this area), it is significant nonetheless. The $5.4 billion currently wasted on bureaucracy could provide a windfall of funds for every classroom in America. If the federal government sent approximately 90 percent of current federal education dollars directly to the classroom, it would translate into an additional $1,800 for every classroom in America. The impact of such an infusion of resources would be felt immediately by every teacher and every student in every school across the country. An additional $1,800 for every teacher to use provides a number of possibilities for improving the quality of education: $200 purchases a microscope, and a child can see a double helix strand of DNA. $70 purchases a sling psychrometer, which students could use to measure the relative humidity and predict the weather. A mere $10 obtains flash cards, allowing students to practice time tables with a friend. $50 buys a globe or a set of maps, allowing children to improve their geography and their knowledge of nations across the seas. And $1,500 buys a computer with enough desktop space, RAM, and Internet access to allow every student in the classroom to experience the vast amount of educational information available at his or her fingertips. In some cases, that new found money may be the difference between new textbooks and continuing to use those from the early 1970s. Without a doubt, placing $1,800 at the disposal of a creative and hardworking teacher can and will make a substantial difference for our children, their education, and their futures. Teachers and superintendents agree that the ``resource gap'' in the classroom must be narrowed. At a recent Education at the Crossroads hearing in Washington, Helen Martin, a high school science teacher from Uninoville, Pennsylvania told legislators: ``It is very frustrating to see so much tax money go to Washington for education and not see funds in the classroom that have been appropriated for education. Please return more education tax dollars directly to the students of our nation who will become the scientitis, business people and lawmakers of the 21st century.'' Dr. Linda Schrenko, the state Superintendent of Schools in Georgia has noted: ``Administrators from Washington will never meet the needs of individual children. . . . I cast my vote for returning as many dollars directly to local schools as we are able. . . . Less bureaucracy on all levels will allow more dollars to directly reach the students in the classroom.'' This debate is not about what we should do with the federal Department of Education. Instead, it is about bringing accountability to this federal agency in a way that ensures that children, not bureaucrats, are the final winners. In 1996, while speaking to the nation's governors, the President stated: ``We cannot ask the American people to spend more on education until we do a better job with what we've got now.'' That is something we can all agree on. Our efforts to move ``Dollars to the Classroom'' will force the Washington bureaucracy to do a better job with the money we are already spending. And through the Education at a Crossroads project, Chairman Hoekstra is working to help identify the programs that are effective at accomplishing this goal, as well as those that are undermining it. On still another occasion President Clinton added, ``In an age of tightening budgets, we should be spending public funds on teachers and children, not on unnecessary overhead and bloated bureaucracy.'' Now, if only the message could get through to the money handlers at USDE. Raising the question ``Where is the money spent?'' is well worth the time it will take to bring this subject to the forefront of debate. For too long, liberals have claimed that increased federal funding is the ultimate problem-solver. Yet, ever-increasing education budgets have demonstrated otherwise, as test scores continue to decline. House Education and the Workforce Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) has noted time and again that we know children are achieving when we invest in programs that help students master basic academics, engage and involve parents, and move dollars into classrooms. These are the activities of local schools, teachers, and parents, not pencil-pushers and bureaucrats in Washington. Basic academics and more dollars to the classroom are a winning combination. Now, we must ensure the best education possible for the most number of students, and the best way to accomplish that goal is to see that our tax dollars make it right back into the classroom. When federal education dollars seep into the pools of Washington's 40-agency education bureaucracy, the exact opposite happens--millions of students lose out on available funding. As H.G. Wells said in his famous Outline of History, ``Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.'' No one would disagree with that. And no one would deny that this is a race we must win. Today, Republicans are launching a number of initiatives designed to help America win that race. The ongoing Education at a Crossroads project continues to illuminate problem areas and success stories in education. The ``Dollars to the Classroom'' resolution will help refocus our efforts on children, not bureaucracies. These Republican projects will help ensure a stronger education system, and a brighter future for every American student.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his leadership, along with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Bill Goodling] on this issue, one of the most important components of our American society, and that is educating our children. I am very pleased that the House Republicans have dedicated themselves to better educating our children. It has become painfully obvious in this country that the answers to our education problems were not, are not, and cannot be found in just arbitrary adjustments of Federal funding levels. Yet, some of our more liberal colleagues here in the House seem to think if we dump more money into crumbling schools, all the problems will go away. We have been down that road before. The House has finally decided to address some new and innovative questions and solutions to the American education experience. I would just like to speak briefly about one initiative that we have focused our attention on. It supports our public education system. It is actually quite simple. It involves getting education dollars directly in the hands of those who make our system work, those who have a direct impact on the classroom experience, those who actually know our children's names. It is called the Dollars to the Classroom initiative. Mr. Speaker, we know that effective teaching takes place when we, one, begin helping children master basic academics; two, when parents are engaged and involved in their children's education; three, when a safe and orderly learning environment is created in the classroom; and then, four, when dollars actually reach the classroom. Each of us agrees that our Nation's children deserve an opportunity to excel. We all know that this opportunity is inhibited when their teachers and administrators are hampered by paperwork, by time constraints, by financial hindrances just to apply for a Federal education grant. The Dollars to the Classroom resolution, which we will vote on next week in this Chamber, calls upon the Federal Department of Education, the State education departments, on local education agencies, to spend a greater percentage of our Federal education tax dollars for our children in the classrooms. This is common sense. For far too long Americans' hard-earned tax dollars have gone to Federal bureaucrats, they have churned through the Washington labyrinth, instead of rightfully being placed in the hands of someone who knows the name of each child. When we look at the funding of our local schools, Federal education dollars are actually a small percentage, rather small, only about 6 or 7 percent. That is a total of $15.4 billion, which goes for elementary and secondary programs from the Federal Department of Education. When we look at those dollars, the classroom may be lucky to see 65 percent of that money. That means that billions of dollars are actually lost in the labyrinth, the abyss of department studies, publications, grant administration, and bureaucracy. To apply for a Department of Education grant, it takes 216 steps, an average of 21 weeks, just to apply. Additionally, the Department of Education produces tens of thousands of publications every year, only to be purchased for a small fee. I recently found out that anyone who wants to purchase one, an average citizen or a Member of Congress or a teacher, looking for a resource, must pay the Department of Education $4.08 for a copy. How would we rather have our Federal education dollars spent, on studies like these? Let me list a few. There are 1,767 studies on career planning, 140 studies on checklists, 13 studies on welding, close to 100 studies on education researchers, researching their research techniques, 260 studies on surveys, 26 studies on camping, 3 studies on cement, the concrete experience, 82 studies on calculators, I think we are beginning to get the picture, all produced with taxpayer dollars. Next week we will vote, and my vote will be in support of tax dollars going for things like providing more teachers, teacher aides, purchasing updated software, state-of-the-art microscopes, using new maps and globes of our world, and even seeing that every American classroom is connected to the Internet and brought into the new information age. The classroom is where the action is. The classroom is where knowledge grows and learning takes place, not in some Washington office where miles upon miles of paperwork and publications are produced. The Dollars to the Classroom initiative expresses a call on the Department of Education to see that more departmental education, elementary and secondary funds, get into the classrooms directly. If this actually happens, much more money, in some cases as much as $1,800, would be available for each classroom in the United States. Even President Clinton has said, and I quote: ``We cannot ask the American people to spend more on education until we do a better job with the money we have got now.'' As he and Vice President Al Gore have said, the reinventing of public education begins not in offices in Washington, but in communities across the country. We must ask the fundamental questions about how dollars which are to go to the public school system are best spent. We must get more efficiency out of the use of our tax dollars. Education dollars in the classroom can make a tremendous difference and can enhance a child's learning experience. This is not lofty Washington policy talk, this is about kids, our kids, and a practical way to see that they benefit from America's education tax dollars. The choice is clear, either our hard- earned tax dollars go to the hands of Washington bureaucrats, or directly to our children's teachers and classrooms. For the sake of our Nation's kids, I call upon every Member of this House to vote to place children first. Next week vote for the Dollars to the Classroom resolution. I hope the Members will support it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, one wonders what the IRS would make of the excuses the White House makes whenever it comes to campaign finance law breaking. How ironic it is that the same administration that has an IRS out of control, an IRS that targets average citizens for political purposes, especially if they happen to work for the White House Travel Office, or used to, an IRS that gives one absolutely no benefit of the doubt, is the same administration that actually claims to be cooperating fully with congressional investigators while putting up a stone wall bigger than the Great Wall of China. Do my colleagues think the IRS would be satisfied with the sudden ``I don't recall'' syndrome that happens every time a White House official testifies before Congress? Do my colleagues think the IRS would let them slide with the ``no controlling legal authority'' defense? Do my colleagues think the IRS would cut them some slack if they got caught red handed and then turned around and said, ``The system made me do it, and anyway, everybody cheats''? I wonder.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Americans and, in particular, every Member of Congress to join in recognizing the International Day of Prayer this coming Sunday for those persecuted for their faith around the world. Our country was founded on the principles of inalienable rights. Central among them was the right to choose and practice one's faith in God. Today, thousands around the globe still must flee their home countries because of severe persecution for practicing their beliefs. Many international human rights agencies report that in the 1990's severe religious persecution continues at an intolerable rate. In China and Vietnam, pastors have frequently been arrested and beaten. In Mexico, believers have been murdered by mobs. In Egypt and Pakistan, young women have been raped and beaten. In China, churches have been bulldozed. In Saudi Arabia, Christians have been tortured. In the Sudan, children have been forced to convert to Islam in order to receive food rations. All this because of their faith in God. We who live in freedom cannot be idle spectators to such widespread injustice. I urge all Members to join in the work to end religious persecution worldwide.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the Hoekstra amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. As a former math and science teacher, as the father of three children who went through the public school system in Pennsylvania, I have, for a long time, been involved with education. Since becoming a Member of Congress, I have begun to investigate the Federal Government's impact on our educational system and, frankly, I do not like some of the things I see. We are wasting a lot of money on bureaucracy. The Hoekstra amendment would help put an end to this practice by sending billions of dollars directly to the States and local school districts and to the classrooms where they are most effective. We must shift the focus of the education debate from Washington to our local communities. We need to listen to the local folks who are trying to teach our local children. One of my school superintendents, Dr. Charles Garris, came and testified recently before the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and he gave his district's personal experience. If I can sum it up, basically he said that at the local level 25 percent of the funds never reach the students that they are intended to serve. Again, 25 percent never reach the students. Today, let us support the Hoekstra amendment, which draws the line in the sand, the distinction between those who want to continue the status quo and those who want to continue the education system in which 40 percent of American 8-year-olds cannot even read; those who want to empower bureaucracy and those who want to get education dollars to the classroom; those who want to give local teachers the tools they need to teach kids; those who want to empower parents. We have a choice. It has been shown time and time again that the Federal Government has created excessive red tape, regulations, paperwork and unproven programs and that we cannot get the dollars to the classroom and to students. So in this battle I think we need to join the gentleman from Michigan to expand the flexibility of the States and give them the funds.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, today we heard the tragic story of the 13- year-old girl from Illinois who was molested by her 37-year-old gym teacher for a period of 18 months while a title X family planning clinic provided the contraceptives. Mr. Chairman, we should not allow this tragic child abuse to happen again. Our current law aids and abets child molesters. This Congress must protect our Nation's daughters. Federal law requires that taxpayer-funded title X clinics provide contraceptives regardless of whether a child's parents know she is seeking birth control. If this 13-year-old's parents had been notified, her molester could have been stopped. The Istook-Manzullo amendment will stop the use of Federal funds in the title X family planning program from being used by sexual predators to molest young girls. This amendment does two things. First, it requires title X clinic staff to follow State law when reporting any evidence they discover that a child is a victim of abuse, sexual molestation, rape or incest, and, two, it requires title X clinic staff to give parents notice, that is not consent, that is just informing the parents of the child's decision, before giving a child contraceptive drugs or devices only. This year the California general assembly passed a law which requires parental consent for body piercing. By 73-3 in the general assembly, 26-4 in the Senate, they passed this law. This is the same girl who would be provided an IUD to be implanted or birth control pills or an injection with Federal funds. The Alan Guttmacher Institute reported that 6 out of 10 girls who had sex before age 15 were coerced by males an average of 6 years their senior. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members today, when is Congress going to stop supporting sexual predators? I urge Members to vote for this vital amendment to protect our Nation's daughters and oppose the Castle substitute. Do not be fooled. The Castle substitute does nothing to stop the molestation of our daughters. The case in Illinois would still have happened under the Castle language. Vote for Istook-Manzullo, vote to strengthen parental rights. Vote against legitimizing promiscuity.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I come before the House today to urge my colleagues to vote for the Smith amendment and against the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. The pro-life safeguards of the Mexico City policy were in effect during the Reagan-Bush years as a way to fully fund family planning without promoting abortion. And the Mexico City policy, which the Smith amendment would reinsert, is both pro-family and pro-life. During those years the policy was in place, in excess of 350 family planning organizations, including Planned Parenthood affiliates in 57 States and countries, accepted those conditions. If the bill is passed without the Smith amendment, the House will appropriate $385 million for international population control without the pro-life safeguards. Opponents of Mexico City will argue that this policy is not necessary because we already have the Helms amendment in law. But, Mr. Chairman, the Helms amendment was found to be infirmed. Yes; it stopped direct funding, but there were loopholes and the pro- abortion groups used those loopholes very effectively. Under current law, U.S. taxpayer dollars go to the international abortion industry which performs abortion on demand, which actively lobbies to overturn foreign country's laws on abortion. This is a fact and our law protects against this blatant misuse of American family tax dollars. Mr. Chairman, this issue is about abortion. Abortion is violent. It is violence against women. It is violence against their unborn children. We need family planning without abortion. Abortion hurts women. It is humiliating. It is painful. It is demeaning. It is disruptive. It breaks the heart of a woman. We need to do family planning without abortion. We can live without it. Let us stop our taxpayer dollars from funding this type of international violence. It is our moral obligation to reinstate Mexico City. Vote for the Smith amendment.