Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Yes.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PITTS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have always maintained that fiscal restraint is the key to balancing our budget and generating economic growth. While liberals have attempted to balance the budget on the backs of taxpaying families, Republicans have continuously worked to get to balance by limiting our Government's size, scope, and spending. I believe the only way we can balance our Federal budget is with increased tax relief and decreased Government. That is why I am introducing the Tax Relief Guarantee Act today. The Tax Relief Guarantee Act accomplishes three important goals as we try to ensure tax relief and a balanced budget by the year 2002. First, my bill allows any Member of Congress to stop consideration of a bill which raises taxes to enforce the balanced budget agreement. Second, the Tax Relief Guarantee Act prohibits the suspension or revocation of any tax relief given over the next 5 years. And finally, this legislation requires that the budget be in balance by the year 2002. The Tax Relief Guarantee Act essentially ensures that any revenue shortfall in the balanced budget agreement be mitigated by decreases in spending, not an increase in taxes or a suspension of tax relief. Liberal still contend that we must balance the budget through tax increases in the event of revenue shortfalls. But I think it's about time that we promise the American people that we will not take their money away if difficulties arise in balancing our budget. Since the beginning of the 105th Congress, my top priorities have been to provide American families permanent tax relief and to balance the budget by 2002. Members of Congress must prove that we have the courage to put money back into the pockets of hard-working Americans, and take it out of the hands of the Washington bureaucrats. I believe that the Tax Relief Guarantee Act will ensure permanent tax relief, and will require Washington to scale back its frivolous spending. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and locking in tax relief for all Americans.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the family farms of Lancaster and Chester Counties are national treasures. Sadly, pristine farmland which has been operated by families in the 16th District of Pennsylvania for generations is at risk due to the Federal estate tax. Many family farms in southeast Pennsylvania and across this National are sold in an effort to pay off huge estates taxes, and others are sold to developers in fear of the impending estate tax. Thanks to excessive taxation, our Nation's farms are slowly being eliminated. That is why I am introducing the Farm Preservation Act today. This bill will protect our farmland by eliminating estate taxes on a farm which has a covenant ensuring that the land will remain a farm. By eliminating the estate tax on farms, families can be rest assured that their life's work will not be abandoned once the farm is left to a family member who will continue the farming tradition. Further, this bill waives all capital gains taxes on the sale of a farm which will be used only as farmland. This provision provides a real incentive for people who must sell their farm to ensure that it remains in agricultural production in the future. Mr. Speaker, in order to preserve our precious farmland, we need to end the tax practices which destroy them. We must also provide incentives for people to keep farmland undeveloped. The Farm Preservation Act accomplishes these important goals. As we consider another tax relief bill in 1998, I urge Members to join me in protecting our Nation's farmland and provide real opportunities to keep family farmers in business.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for an end to the many human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China, and I rise in support of renewing China's most-favored-nation trading status because, Mr. Speaker, these two goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, renewing MFN for China will enable us to address the abuses we find so objectionable, first by keeping the lines of communication open with those leaders in China who have the power to change persecution and the climate there through private and tough diplomacy and, second, by allowing the many human rights, mission and Christian agencies in China to continue their work with the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, revoking China's MFN trade status and essentially declaring economic warfare on China is not the best way to achieve our goal of improving the human condition for the Chinese people. In fact, it would exacerbate the problem. Since this debate began I have spoken with many in the mission and Christian community who live and work in China, missionaries and Christian leaders whose whole lives are committed to the Chinese people. What they have told me is that if MFN status is revoked they feel that they would feel the effects of retribution on themselves and on Chinese Christians and on human rights activists. They told me that the hand of the hard liners would come down upon the people of China and especially anyone who is perceived as representing the West. Rev. Daniel Su, a former member of the Chinese Red Guard who now works for China Outreach Mission Ministry, has said, quote: The Chinese people are better off if MFN status is maintained. People suffer when China becomes isolated and hostile. Isolating China will do nothing for human rights in China particularly the rights of Chinese Christians. Like Rev. Daniel Su has said, Cutting off ties with China is like setting your car on fire when it stalls. Dr. Samuel Ling, the Institute for Chinese Studies said this: History has proven that as the United States engages China, a more pluralistic atmosphere develops, and both the standard of living and human rights and freedoms stand to improve. Others have made other quotes, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Members to support MFN.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit the following into the Congressional Record. The first is an excellent response from the Reverend Daniel Su on extending most-favored-nation trade status to China. Rev. Daniel Su, a Chinese Christian, has lived in China and has valuable insight on the MFN issue. As Reverend Su states in his letter, ``To sacrifice ourselves for the sake of principles is heroic, but to sacrifice other people for our principles is insensitive.'' With this letter, Reverend Su is responding to an open letter on China's persecution of Christians written by Gary Bauer, president of Family Research Council. I am submitting a letter from Mr. Bauer also. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A Response to the ``Open Letter'' by G. Bauer and Others (By Daniel B. Su) I. An Overall Response: This Open Letter as well as other anti-MFN efforts are valuable in that they remind us of the important principles such as freedom and human dignity. They enhance the public awareness of China's human rights situation thus creating more pressure on Beijing and making the message of the MFN debate even stronger. It also gives the US government greater bargaining power with Beijing. NGOs should continue to speak out; the louder, the better. However the Letter miscalculates the overall impact if the MFN should be revoked. Revocation would create more problems than what it may solve. It defies all logics that Beijing government would turn around and improve its human rights situation if it were humiliated with its loss of MFN. The Letter scores high in preaching moral principals, but we need to make one important distinction: To sacrifice ourselves for the sake of principles is heroic, but to sacrifice other people for our principles is insensitive--to say the least. We all deplore the gross human rights violation in China. But the Letter does not want to address the most important question in this serious debate: Will revoking China's MFN improve or worsen its human rights situation and religious freedom? By avoiding this serious question and relying more on emotional appeal, the Letter becomes less serious and relevant. While the views of those who signed the Letter should be respected, we also notice that many other well respected Christian leaders' names are not on it. And that in itself is a reflection of the healthy diversity among Christian leaders' opinions over the MFN issue. II. Specific Responses To the Letters' Arguments (page and paragraph numbers in brackets): [p. 1, par.2]: We may agree that many Christian leaders may not think it appropriate to voice their pro-MFN views in public, but let's not underestimate the integrity of those who do speak our. Missions leaders understand China better; that is why they tend to favor renewing China's MFN. [p. 1, par.3]: We agree that the US should and could have engaged China in a more effective way to improve its human rights; relying on trade and other current policies is not enough. On the other hand, our ideals need to be tempered with a sense of realism. The US leverage is limited; contrary to our wishes, the US government is not able to solve all the problems of the world. After all, we live in a fallen world where all countries have fallen short of the higher standards. [p. 1, par.4]: We should continue to be the voice for the voiceless in China despite Beijing's threats, for the persecuted find strength and consolation in knowing that we care and are speaking up for them. However, on the abortion issue, unless the US government first outlaws abortion on its own land, it has no moral authority to teach other nations how to do abortion. (The NGOs are better qualified to do the job.) The US and China differ only in how abortion is achieved, but in both cases does it not end up depriving the baby's inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Let's pray for the day when the US regains its moral ground to address such issues. [p. 1, par.5]: A serious warning should be given to those who try to exploit the plight of Chinese Christians and make them look like the archenemy of the Beijing government. What's at stake here is the cause of Christ and [p. 1, par.5]: A serious warning should be given to those who try to exploit the plight of Chinese Christians and make them look like the archenemy of the Beijing government. What's at stake here is the cause of Christ and the lives of many Chinese Christians! China's Christians are simple religious people who do not have a political agenda, and they despise those who try to put a political label on them. There is indeed a serious danger that the arguments made by the Letter may be sized upon by those China bashers and new hawks whose only interest is to make an enemy out of China--now that the Soviet enemy is no more--and to demand sacrifices from American people. [p.2, par.1] With the fall of communism, it may well be the panic reaction of some elite intellectuals to suggest ``strangling the baby [the church] while it is still in the manger,'' yet we still need to be truthful enough to acknowledge that the current Beijing government policy is only to control and contain the growing church, thus allowing for some limited freedom. [p.2, par.2] NGOs should be commended for speaking up for the Chinese persecuted. [p.2, par.3] Of course, things can be much worse in China-- anyone who understands China knows that. Christian gatherings of worship could have been forced to close totally; those political dissidents in jail today could have been executed; dissidents could have been sentenced to 15 years instead of 5; families of the prisoners could have faced much more harassment and discrimination. [p.2, par.4] While we protest against the inhumane treatment of Pastor Wong, we can agree that this is an exceptional case rather than the rule. We all know that technology cuts both ways. While the Chinese police become better equipped, Chinese Christians and political dissidents also benefit from having access to computers, copying and fax machines, Internet, and so on, making it difficult for police to control people. [p.2, par.5] It sent a wrong message to Beijing and Chinese people when President Clinton declared to delink human rights concerns from the MFN. However, revoking China's MFN can only backfire. [p.3, par.1] Let's quit making the US the model to all nations and instead take an honest look at reality. The US is part of the fallen world where we see rampant abortions, racial tension and violent crimes, partisan spirit and demogarchy in politics, divisions and scandals within the church, consumerism and hedonism in society, and alarming moral decay in culture. Christian leaders should know better than to display the US as a model. Let's make a distinction between the United States and Christian faith. The early America did share biblical aspirations for justice, equality, and human dignity, but such aspirations are Christian, not American. Though America's sins, past and present, in no way justify Beijing's abuse of power, they do help keep us humble, don't they? III. Conclusion China today is in a critical stage. It can either evolve into a more open and democratic nation or an enemy to the US. If the Soviet Union could evolve into a democracy, why can't China? Let's not be like the pessimists who say things won't change; instead, let's work to turn possibilities into realities. What's crucially needed today is for American leaders to unite in formulating a con- sistent, comprehensive China policy that helps China get on the right track without turning it into an enemy. That is a moral obligation the leaders owe to America and America's children. [Rev. Daniel B. Su is from China and now works in the US as the assistant to the president, China Outreach Ministries, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia]

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is that time of year again when America honors its dads. This Sunday, we will celebrate Father's Day, a day to acknowledge the special place which dads hold in our hearts, a day to recognize the role dads have played as father, husband, teacher, mentor, provider, caregiver and friend. Mr. Speaker, every American has a father, but not every American has a dad, one whom they know, love, spend time with and trust. Because of this fact, our country has suffered. Indeed, the United States is now the world's leader in fatherless families. This has taken its toll in our society. We know men across America struggle to be good dads, and Members of this House know the sacrifices we have to make to live up to our responsibilities as fathers. Many of us are co-laborers in the struggle. Mr. Speaker, this is why several Members have joined me today to establish the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion. With colleagues from both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McIntyre], the gentleman from California [Mr. Rogan], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner], I have established the Fatherhood Promotion Task Force, first as a result of the unsavory fact that fatherlessness is a reality for far too many American children and, second, because it is time that men who hold high places be the ones to mold a new reality. We must lead by example. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for fathers to take hold of and be proud of their role as dad. I wish every father a happy Father's Day and ask you: Have you loved your children today?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor several students from Hempfield High School in Lancaster County, PA who have recently traveled to Washington to compete in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. These Hempfield students--who were part of teacher Elaine Savukas's advanced placement government classes--won first and second place in the Pennsylvania ``We the People'' contest. The ``We the People'' competition tests students' knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--the two historic documents on which the country was founded. I cannot emphasize enough the positive impact that gaining a solid understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will have on these gifted students. It is vital that America's students follow the lead of those who so diligently studied, learned, and competed in the ``We the People'' national finals. By taking part in the competition, the Hempfield participants are true winners. Their work will benefit them and their communities long into the future. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the government students from Hempfield High School and we wish them the best in their futures.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the balanced budget agreement of 1997. With the passage of this agreement today, we can move to the task of enacting the balanced budget plan. This agreement is a good first step toward the goals of balancing our budget, providing permanent tax relief for American families and reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I believe today that the American families deserve a break, a tax break, and the balanced budget plan will give American families some of the tax relief they deserve. Our congressional leaders and the President have come up with a plan which will give Americans $135 billion in tax relief over 5 years and $250 billion over 10 years in tax relief. The tax relief package in this budget ensures that all Americans win. With it we can provide relief for families with children with a per child tax credit, the opportunity for people to keep their family farms and businesses with death tax relief, incentives for job creation and economic growth with capital gains tax relief, incentives for savings and investment with IRA expansion and relief for families who send their kids to college. Some on the other side say that is too much. They claim American families can actually afford to pay more to Washington. I say they cannot. I urge the liberals to join their President in supporting real permanent tax relief for the American family by supporting this balanced budget agreement. Mr. Speaker, not only does this conference report give tax relief, it reduces the size and scope of the Federal Government. In current dollars Washington will spend less than over the next 5 years in nondefense discretionary spending than it has since 1969. That is the last time Washington balanced its books. The congressional leaders and the Presidents have worked together to create a plan which will save the taxpayers $961 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this important balanced budget agreement.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge Members to support the Smith amendment. The Campbell amendment merely creates a scheme which frees up more of the organization's own resources for the promotion of abortion overseas. In contrast, the Mexico City policy places a wall of separation between abortion and family planning. The Smith amendment prevents U.S. funding for such things as China's deplorable population control program, which includes coercion, forced abortion, forced sterilization for Chinese men and women alike. Women all over China are victimized daily due to their ability and desire to bear children. China's so-called family planning policy includes the following methods, and it is documented in this book by the anthropologist Steven Mosher and others, entitled ``The Broken Earth''. This is the international family planning program the UNFPA has publicly praised. First, arresting pregnant women and taking them to abortion clinics tied up or in handcuffs. Second, incarcerating pregnant women in barracks until they acquiesce to abortions and/or sterilization. Third, forcing pregnant women to attend study sessions away from their families until they agree to have abortions. Carrying out sterilization or abortion without the consent or knowledge of the women while rendering other medical services. Imprisoning husbands until wives submit to abortion procedures. Cutting off food, electricity, water and wages for couples who refuse to comply with the Chinese Government's barbaric policies. Confiscating furniture, livestock and even homes of families who refuse to comply. And fourth, demolishing the homes of people who refuse to comply as reported in the two Catholic villages at Hepel Province. Mr. Chairman, this is not family planning. These are outright human rights abuses. I do not believe this is a pro-life or pro-choice issue; this is a human issue, this is a woman's issue, this is a family issue. This is an issue of blatant governmental abuse, and the United States should not be in any way a part of it through the United Nations or any other agency.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, during Small Business Week, I stand here to pay tribute to the engines of our economy--those small businesses across the country which provide goods and services--and most importantly jobs--to the American people. I am here today to implore my colleagues to recognize how small businesses are improving our economy. And I implore my colleagues to recognize that these job creators are being hassled and regulated by a Federal Government which has no regard for how much small businesses drive this Nation. Mr. Speaker, small businesses account for 99.7 percent of the Nation's employers. They employ 53 percent of the private work force, and they contribute 47 percent of all sales in the country. In fact, small businesses are responsible for 50 percent of the private GDP of this country. Yet, the small business owners of this Nation face a tax system and regulatory burdens which limit growth and discourage development. If Government is meant to be the servant of the people, our current tax and regulatory systems are certainly not assisting our Nation's small businesses. Even with the legislation Congress has passed to help small business get out from under the thumb of the Federal Government, more assaults are now being urged by the Clinton administration. With such economic and growth potential within small businesses across this country, we should be doing all we can to assist them. We must act as their servants--instead of hindering their progress. They need relief from encumbering taxes and from job-killing regulation. For starters--we could repeal an unfair estate tax which targets the very families and small businesses which are creating employment in their communities. Because of this tax, millions of small business owners are in jeopardy of losing the businesses which they have spent their entire lives building. Under this oppressive IRS Code, someone can work a lifetime--and the moment they die, so could all the jobs of the people who work for them. Mr. Speaker, Ron Hill of Lancaster, PA is an entrepreneur. He has spent a lifetime building a healthy business and generating jobs. The state of his company has a direct effect on 35 families. Is it justifiable that individuals like Ron Hill must worry that when he dies--his family won't be able to pay the hefty estate tax--and so the jobs of his employees will be in jeopardy. For too long, the estate tax--in order to raise just 1 percent of total Federal revenues--has been burdening the people of this country with the increased cost of capital and stifled economic growth and higher interest rates. Even though our budget agreement takes a step in the right direction by raising the ceiling on the taxed amount--we should not end there. If the tax were repealed this year, the Nation's economy would increase by as much as $100 billion over the next 9 years. This extra capital would also allow an average of 145,000 additional new jobs per year to be created. Personal income would rise above current projections by an average of $8 billion per year. Most importantly, small business owners in this country would be encouraged, and not discouraged, as they work hard to pass on an enterprise of value to their children. We must not stop until this tax is repealed. Another effort that the Federal Government can undertake to assist small businesses is to keep damaging and unnecessary regulations off their backs. In November of last year, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed harsh new national Air Quality Standards. Since then, there has been significant outcry over these regulations. While the EPA is required to review standards every 5 years, they are not required to change them without sufficient proof of the benefit to public health. It would be extremely difficult for the EPA to justify an additional $10 billion plus annual price tag for the American people if these new regulations go into effect. This costly unfunded mandate will force many small businesses to close their doors--small businesses like dry cleaners, bakeries, and printers. Mr. Speaker, I recently held a forum for small business leaders of the 16th Congressional District. Small business representatives such as Carol Hess of Lancaster Labs, Andy Cuiffetelli of Custom Casings, and Howard Winey of Martin Limestone--each can tell a story of hardship caused to their growing businesses because of these regulations. Not only do these companies deal with multiple permits from the Pennsylvania and the Federal Environmental Departments, but expanded regulations mean businesses spend time trying to bend over backwards to comply with Federal regulations. This translates into an entire year's worth of capital spending which would otherwise go to improving quality and making businesses more competitive. In the words of Howard Winey of Martin Limestone, ``ours is a progressive area and one of the only areas of Pennsylvania that has sustained growth. If our growth is inhibited, everyone suffers.'' We cannot afford to do this to our communities. Yes, we must all support enhancing the quality of life--but this regulation solves no legitimate public health hazard. These EPA regulations are bad science and bad for business. Another important workplace issue to small businesses is allowing small business owners to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs when they fill out their tax returns. Start-up and maintenance costs are far and above some of the toughest costs to overcome. It is patently unfair that large corporations can deduct 100 percent of their share of employees' health-care costs while the self-employed farmer or home business owner can only deduct 40. Even though last year's bill increased the deductibility to 80 percent by 2006, that is not good enough. Small business owners need a level playing field to assist their growth. Additionally Mr. Speaker, 14 million Americans now operate home-based businesses. Because of corporate downsizing, improvements in technology, and a desire to be close to family--individuals choose to work from home. Tax equity between those who work from home and those who rent office space--and can deduct the costs of renting--is a reasonable request and should be allowed. Mr. Speaker, I have listed just a few of the regulatory and tax relief measures which could go a long way in helping small businesses of this country to grow even faster and stronger than they are today. It is these businesses which carry a large portion of the load for our Nation's economy. We, here in Congress, have a responsibility to lighten their load-- and help them along the road to economic prosperity--for their businesses and for our communities. I salute the small business owners of America. We must pledge to work to ease their burden. I now yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like those who would like the Internet address to get out a pen and paper. I will give that to my colleagues. The Internet address for the budget agreement is http// hillsource.house.gov/budget.html. Documents dealing with the budget agreement are on the Internet, so all Americans can see how it came about, what is in it. The home page is labeled a balanced budget for America's future. This will allow the people at the same time as the Washington insiders to have the information. Again, the Internet address is http//hillsource.house.gov/ budget.html.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the balanced budget agreement of 1997. This is a bipartisan compromise which is necessary in this day of divided government which demonstrates an ability to govern even with the President of one party and Congress of the other. The passage of the balanced budget resolution will be a solid first step toward the goals of balancing our budget, providing permanent tax relief for American families and reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government while improving the fiscal health of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, after months of negotiations, the Republican leadership and President Clinton have found enough common ground to draft a budget which will come to real balance by no later than 2002. Mr. Chairman, I believe that American families deserve a break, a tax break, and this bipartisan plan will give American families the tax relief they deserve. This plan will give Americans $135 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years, and for the next 10 years the Americans will get a tax break of $250 billion. The tax relief package in this budget insures that every American wins. It is a permanent win. It is not a temporary tax cut. With it we can provide relief for families with children with a per child tax credit, the opportunity for people to keep their family farms and businesses with death tax relief, incentives for job creation and economic growth with capital gains tax relief, incentives for savings and investment with IRA expansion, relief for families who send their kids to college with the education tax credit. Mr. Chairman, with our bipartisan plan we save Medicare, we increase Medicare spending, provide seniors with better choices. While liberals hold onto bureaucracy, we have chosen ways to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare for the sake of our seniors. And finally this budget will decrease the size and scope of our Federal Government. In current dollars Washington will spend less over the next 5 years in nondefense discretionary spending than it has since 1969. That is the last time Washington balanced its books. This bipartisan plan will save the taxpayers $961 billion over the next 10 years in spending. Without this agreement, we would be spending almost $1 trillion in higher spending; and guess who foots the bill for this extra $1 trillion? American families. Mr. Chairman, compromise is essential with a divided government. There are components of this budget which are not perfect. There are even some components which some of us would change, if we could. However, the President has veto power. The Republicans have a slim majority of 10 seats, and we cannot override a Presidential veto. If we send the President the spending reduction and tax relief we did in the last Congress, the President would veto again, and the deficit will continue to grow indefinitely. So, Mr. Chairman, we agree that this is a bipartisan agreement. If my colleagues would take a look at this chart, this is what the average American family spends on taxes today: $21,883. It is more than what they spend on food, shelter, clothing, and transportation combined, and this is the level of taxation that families will continue to endure if we do not pass this bipartisan plan. The American family needs this bipartisan plan. It will mean lower taxes, lower interest rates, economic, domestic expansion and a healthy economy. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 40 years we have this bipartisan agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan balanced budget resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as a parent and a former school teacher, I am firmly committed to providing out Nation's children an education which will prepare them for their futures. I believe that only by empowering parents to do more for their child can our Nation's next generation truly thrive. That's why I am introducing the Children's Education Tax Credit Act today. This bill provides a $450 tax credit per child for education expenses. The tax credit will apply to all individuals paying for textbooks, tuition, and other resources children need to excel in school. Today, too many Americans are forced to choose between spending a little extra on their kid's learning and paying the rent. With the children's education tax credit, we can free parents to make the best education choices for their children. For decades, American families have struggled to make the best education choices because the Federal Government taxes them too much. It is vital that we reward investment in a child's education and encourage families to control more of their own money. By letting parents decide how best their education dollars can be spent, we begin deferring to local communities and families the crucial decisions on how to educate a child. I urge that Members join me in fighting for sound education for our Nation's children by supporting the Children's Education Tax Credit Act.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget plan of 1997. After months of unceasing work, the Republican majority has delivered a balanced budget plan where every American wins. While all the details have not been worked out yet, like the level of funding for transportation, this agreement is a solid first step in the Republican goals of balancing our budget, reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government and providing permanent tax relief for American families. With this agreement, American families will pay $135 billion less in taxes over the next 5 years. It will save Medicare for seniors, produce approximately $700 billion in entitlement savings over the next 10 years, and finally, ensure that every American benefits from the economic boon of a balanced budget by 2002. That means lower interest rates, higher-paying jobs, and long-term economic growth. Mr. Speaker, compromise is essential with divided government. I applaud those who achieve this compromise. I look forward to passing the balanced budget plan of 1997 and the accompanying bills, which will be a first step in getting our fiscal house in order.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today because I believe that one of the greatest challenges that faces our Nation today is the education of our children and grandchildren. Recently, a fifth grade student wrote to me commenting that ``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.'' I agree with this student. Currently, we are failing the school children of America. We are failing their parents as we allow their hard-earned education tax dollars to be funneled through layers of bureaucracy. The problem with our education system today is not how much money we spend, but how we choose to spend it. While it is unknown exactly what percentage of Federal education dollars reaches the classroom, a recent audit of New York City public schools found that only 43 percent of their local education budget reaches the classroom. Another study found that only 85 percent of funds administered by the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary education reach the school district level. Even if 65 percent of Federal education funds presently reach the classroom, it still means that billions of dollars are not directly spent on children in the classroom. For these reasons, today I am introducing the Dollars to the Classroom resolution. My Dollars to the Classroom resolution expresses the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that Department of Education, State education departments, and local education agencies should spend more Federal education tax dollars for our Nation's children--in their classrooms. For far too long, Americans' hard-earned tax dollars have gone to Federal bureaucrats and have churned through a Washington labyrinth-- instead of rightfully being placed in the hands of someone who knows your child's name. Of the $15.4 billion which goes to elementary and secondary programs in the Federal Department of Education, the classroom may be lucky to see 65 percent of that. That means over $5.4 billion is lost in the abyss of Department studies, publications, and grant administration. I believe Americans would rather see their dollars at work--providing more teachers and teacher aides, purchasing updated software and state- of-the-art microscopes, and even seeing that every American classroom is connected to the Internet and brought into our new Information Age. The classroom is where the action is. The classroom is where knowledge grows and the learning takes place. Not in some stuffy Washington office--where miles upon miles of paperwork and publications are produced--and even teachers must pay if they want to benefit. The Dollars to the Classroom resolution calls on the Department of Education to see that 90 percent of Department of Education elementary and secondary education funds get into the classrooms of this Nation-- directly. If this actually happened roughly $1,800 would be added to each classroom budget across the United States. Even President Clinton has said, ``We cannot ask the American people to spend more on education until we do a better job with the money we've got now.'' As he and Vice President Gore have said, the reinventing of public education begins not in the halls or offices of Washington, but in communities across the country. We must ask the fundamental questions about how dollars which are to go to the public school systems are spent. Education dollars in the classroom can make a tremendous difference and can enhance a child's learning experience. I would like to share some comments from school children about the Dollars to the Classroom resolution. They have said that, ``I support this bill because . . . Our books are falling apart, so it is kind of hard to learn with them. My Social Studies book was new in 1988. Hey, it's 1997, we need to get new books! I think more of the taxes for education should go to the schools. We really need more money in our classroom because our teacher always has to buy things for our classroom with her own money. We need to get more teachers so the children can get more education. We need more money in the schools for things such as books, paper, posters and items (our teacher) needs to teach. Many chairs are wobbly, the books are torn, in the winter, the classrooms are practically freezing. All of this makes it very difficult to learn. This bill will hopefully improve our learning. I hope this bill is supported and becomes official. The classrooms in the U.S. need more things and equipment to help the kids. Yes, let's help the kids. We have a moral responsibility to drastically improve our current education system for our children. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our Nation's kids--I call upon all of us to choose to put children first. I urge Members of the House to support the Dollars to the Classroom resolution. I thank the Speaker, and look forward to working with him during the 105th Congress on this important issue.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. That is correct.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it would limit the amount of money they could take of our Federal education dollars that we put in the budget and consume on the bureaucracy. As we know, most funding for our local schools comes from the State and local levels, only about 7 percent comes from the Federal Government. But we need to be more efficient as to how we utilize those Federal dollars. This would in effect drive those dollars through the bureaucracy, Federal, State bureaucracy into the classroom. It would deny them access to that.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak really on behalf of millions of students, teachers, administrators and many Members of Congress to discuss one of the most important components of our American society, and that is our education system. I would like to talk about what can and should become an American initiative, sending more dollars to our Nation's classrooms. Every citizen of this Nation agrees that children deserve an opportunity to excel. But this opportunity is inhibited when teachers and administrators are hampered by paperwork, time constraints and financial hindrances just to apply for Federal education grants. Tomorrow, as my colleague said, I will introduce a resolution entitled the dollars to the classroom resolution, calling for the Department of Education to provide more elementary and secondary dollars to the classrooms of our Nation's children. My resolution calls for a change in the way we spend our Federal education dollars. For too long, Americans' hard-earned tax dollars have gone to bureaucracy and have churned through the Washington labyrinth instead of rightfully being placed into the classrooms, into the hands of someone who knows the name of your child. Of the $15.4 billion which goes to elementary and secondary programs, in the Federal Department of Education, the classroom may be lucky to see 65 percent. That means about $5.4 billion is lost in the abyss of department studies, publications and grant administration. To apply for a Department of Education grant, it takes nearly 216 steps, an average of 21 weeks. That is over 5 months of work for someone on the local level just to apply for a Federal grant.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Mr. PITTS. As a former classroom teacher myself, I know that it would not be very encouraging to me to have to spend hours upon hours to apply for something that I had no guarantee of receiving. But I think Americans would rather see their tax dollars at work providing more teachers, teacher aides, purchasing materials, supplies, updated software, calculators, textbooks, and even seeing the American classroom connected to the Internet brought into the new information age. The classroom is where the action is. The classroom is where knowledge grows and learning takes place. This dollars to the classroom initiative would call upon the Federal Department of Education and State and local agencies to see that 95 cents of every Federal dollar would get to the local school district. And of those Federal dollars that get to the local school district, 95 cents of every Federal dollar would get into the classroom, into the hands of someone that knows your child's name. If this actually happened, roughly $1,800 more could be available in each classroom across the United States. We heard the quote from President Clinton that we cannot ask Americans to spend more on education until we do a better job with the money that we have got now. And for $10 to purchase flash cards, a student could practice her timetables with a friend. For $50 for a globe or a set of maps, children improve their geography, their knowledge of nations across the seas. For $1,500, we can buy a computer with enough desk top space and Internet access to allow every student access to a vast amount of information available at their fingertips. So this really is about kids, about practical ways to see that they benefit from Federal education tax dollars. I think for the sake of our Nation's kids, we should all put our children first.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again the minority simply does not understand the intent of House Resolution 109. Since I have been a Member of the House of Representatives, the Democrats have not had an opportunity to go on record officially in a vote and support tax relief. We have had this debate going on for a couple of months. They have endorsed a budget that is out of balance, that has raised taxes, that would raise taxes, that would increase welfare spending. Mr. Speaker, this resolution speaks in a clear, unequivocal voice: We will have tax relief this year. It will be permanent, not temporary. It will be part of our budget. It will be for the American family. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Pickering].

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman on the other side has stated that this is about tax relief for corporations. This resolution is about American families, not corporations. We could not do anything really more worthy on the day that we pay taxes in the people's House than to discuss tax relief for American families. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof].