Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, the section 8 program is a program I believe is in serious need of fundamental reforms, not more money. Two weeks ago, the House debated H.R. 1851, the so-called Section 8 Voucher Reform Act. But rather than making the program more effective for the individuals who use it and more accountable to the taxpayers who fund it, the bill will create 100,000 more vouchers at a cost of $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. I offered several amendments to strengthen the bill and bring about some much-needed responsibility to the program, to add, for example, work requirements and time limits and to stop the creation of new vouchers. Unfortunately, those amendments were voted down. And now 2 weeks later, we find ourselves considering a bill that would reward this flawed program by increasing its funding by hundreds of millions of dollars. When we committed ourselves sometime ago to welfare reform, it was with the understanding that the program should no longer be a tax- funded handout but should instead offer people a way out of poverty, helping them obtain job and education skills they needed to become self-sufficient. Ending welfare cycle of dependencies have cut the welfare rolls in half, promoted individual responsibility, and saved billions of tax dollars in the process. Sadly, current housing programs closely resemble the failed welfare policies of the past. Like the old welfare programs, the section 8 housing program discourages work and allows people to stay on the program indefinitely. It is also too often mismanaged by local governments or housing authorities. I represent most of the city of Cincinnati, its western suburbs and few townships in Butler County, Ohio. Too many neighborhoods in my district have had to witness the crime, despair, and hopelessness that are inherent in a government program that asks virtually nothing of the recipients and that encourages dependency rather than responsibility and waste rather than work. Whether it is the funding provided by the Federal Government or mismanagement of the program by local governments and agencies, section 8 has failed those who use it and those who pay for it: the American taxpayers. It is also important to point out that the dependency that section 8 has created is so great that there are long waiting lists to get vouchers. Why? Because too many of those who gain access to the program don't leave. They don't really have an incentive to. The average stay is about 7 years. Madam Chairman, this is a very modest, straightforward amendment. My amendment would simply reduce section 8 vouchers, the funding, by $330 million to bring it in line with the administration's budget request. This bill would spend $16.3 billion on vouchers, asking virtually nothing of its recipients. On behalf of the American taxpayers, I don't think it is asking too much of this Congress to settle for a smaller increase to a program that spends far too much with too little accountability. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just note that I don't think we are doing those kids living in section 8 housing any favors by encouraging a life or a lifestyle of living in section 8 housing. I think we're doing them a great disservice. And I want to thank the gentleman from California for his efforts to bring more accountability and responsibility to the section 8 program, a program that, let's face it, is in need of fundamental reform. Madam Chair, this is a very straightforward and commonsense amendment, and again, I want to commend the gentleman for offering it. It would simply place a time limit, one that I believe is generous, on able-bodied individuals currently receiving housing assistance through the section 8 program. Under current law, there are no time limits. Those on section 8 can remain on section 8 for as long as they qualify. Is that fair to the taxpayers? No. Is it fair to the section 8 recipients who become trapped in a life of dependency or to their children? I don't think so. Is it fair that the current lack of time limits prevent those on the waiting list, who may have fallen on hard times and are genuinely looking for a temporary helping hand, from receiving help? I don't think so. Madam Chair, I would submit that the current lack of time limits isn't fair to anyone. We've seen the positive effects that time limits and work requirements can have on social programs. We need look no further back in history than the 1996 Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, or the welfare reform law, that reformed the old welfare system, a system that had trapped so many into a life of dependency and poverty. And the old welfare system bears a remarkable resemblance to the section 8 program. And I think that's just unacceptable. We can do better in this country than section 8 housing and condemning both adults and children to the conditions that they have to live in, in my community in Cincinnati or communities all over the country. Section 8 housing is not the type of lifestyle that I think we want to condemn those people living in them or their children to. And I don't think the taxpayers ought to be required to pay for this subsidized housing forever in some cases.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is one of three amendments that I am offering this evening, two of the three with a couple of my colleagues, one Mr. Miller from California and Mr. Hensarling from Texas, that would encourage fundamental reforms in the section 8 program. When we committed ourselves to welfare reform, it was the understanding that the program should no longer be a taxpayer-funded handout but should instead offer people a way out of poverty, helping them obtain job and education skills that are needed to become ultimately self-sufficient. Ending welfare's cycle of dependency has cut the welfare rolls in half, promoted individual responsibility, and saved billions of tax dollars in the process. Sadly, current housing programs closely resemble the failed welfare policies of the past. Like the old welfare programs, the section 8 housing program, unfortunately, discourages work and allows people to stay, in fact, encourages them to stay on the program, oftentimes indefinitely. It is also too often mismanaged by local governments or local housing authorities. Unfortunately, this bill does not address those issues but instead expands the program to 100,000 new section 8 vouchers at the cost of approximately 2.4 billion taxpayer dollars over the next 5 years. That is 100,000, approximately, more recipients that get a chunk of the rent that is ultimately going to be picked up by their fellow taxpayers and ultimately, in my view, doesn't do the people that become dependent upon this good in the long term. That is 100,000 more recipients who don't have to work to stay in the program, and that is 100,000 recipients that are being supported by the American taxpayers for as long as they like since section 8 now imposes no time limits on the beneficiaries. I represent most of the city of Cincinnati and its western suburbs and a few townships in Butler County, Ohio. Too many neighborhoods in my district have had to witness crime, despair, and hopelessness that are inherent in a government program that asks virtually nothing of its recipients, that encourages dependency rather than responsibility and waste, unfortunately, rather than work. Whether it is the funding provided by the Federal Government or mismanagement of the program by local governments and agencies, section 8 has failed those who use it and those who pay for it: the American taxpayers. My amendment is straightforward. It would simply stop throwing good money after bad and seeks to prevent more Americans from falling victim to a life of dependency on the government. My amendment would simply prohibit the dollars this bill authorizes from being spent on the 100,000 new vouchers that this legislation would create. It is also important to point out that the dependency that section 8 has created is so great that there are long waiting lists to get vouchers. Why? Because many of those who gain access to the program ultimately don't leave. They don't really have an incentive to. The average stay is about 7 years. Madam Chairman, if we simply put time limits and meaningful work requirements in the program, as the amendments that I have offered with Mr. Miller and Mr. Hensarling would do, there wouldn't be a need to create more vouchers because people would be moving through the system, moving toward independence and a better life, and that nondependence on the government is what every American should want. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. That being the case, Madam Chair, I give myself such time as I have remaining.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chair, I would just like to reiterate the fact that I don't think we're doing either the children or the people that have become dependent on section 8 housing any favors by allowing, number one, the area that we covered in the last amendment, people to remain on section 8 housing indefinitely. I think that the time limit that's been proposed in the previous amendment is certainly a step in the right direction. The amendment that we have following this goes to a work requirement, which I think is also very reasonable in a program such as this. I think encouraging people to remain dependent upon the government in the conditions that oftentimes we see in section 8 housing is doing no favor for those families, and that's why I think this is an appropriate amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I thank the gentleman from Texas for his efforts to bring more accountability to the section 8 program. It's much needed and long overdue. As welfare reform has shown us, the section 8 program should not become a way of life. It should be a helping hand, a way out of poverty. Ending the welfare cycle of dependency that has trapped so many has cut the welfare rolls in half, promoted individual responsibility and saved billions of tax dollars in the process. One of the primary engines that continues to drive the civic welfare reform is the requirement that those in the program must work, and that's all that this amendment does. To be clear, the Hensarling-Chabot amendment would simply require all able-bodied individuals who have received section 8 for more than 7 consecutive years to work. I don't see anything at all mean-spirited about that. I certainly don't see anything bigoted about that to say that if somebody is receiving tax dollars, they ought to be required to work, to do something in consideration for the tax dollars that are being paid to help that person live while they need that assistance. So the amendment, again, as the gentleman indicates, exempts those that are under 18 years of age, that are over 62 or blind or disabled, and those already exempt under TANF, and single parents of children under six. The amendment benefits the taxpayer and those in the section 8 program. I would urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It requires work, and I think that's a good thing.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Alaska has so many years of distinguished work and experience in this House that he if he offered a bill like that, I would certainly be willing to closely read that bill and seriously consider cosponsoring it.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHABOT. I want to once again commend the gentleman for offering his leadership on offering this amendment this year. Mr. Chairman, since 1982, the Forest Service has lost nearly $1 billion subsidizing private timber in the Tongass National Forest. That's a $40 million loss every year. If anyone wonders why our national debt is as large as it is, and it's currently about $8.8 trillion, yes, that's with a ``T,'' trillion, one needs to look knew further than taxpayer boondoggles like this one. They add up. There are thousands of miles of roads in the Tongass. The Forest Service acknowledges that existing roads are ``sufficient to satisfy local demand for roaded recreation, substance, and community connectivity needs and demands in most districts.'' Yet year after year, the Forest Service spends millions of tax dollars building roads for private timber companies that, by the Agency's own admission, aren't really necessary. To make matters worse, the Forest Service has a nationwide road and maintenance backlog of about $10 billion, tens of millions of which are in the Tongass. Incredibly, the Forest Service isn't maintaining existing roads, yet they want to build more, even though they admit that there are already enough. Does that make any sense? Of course not. This is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would simply prohibit the Forest Service from building logging roads for timber companies subsidized by the American taxpayer in the Tongass. It does not stop timber companies from building their own roads. I know that there are some who want you to believe differently, but this amendment has nothing to do with the roadless rule or interfering with the Tongass land management plan. It is everything to do with good government. Opponents of this amendment will argue that the massive losses in the Tongass are due to litigation. Taxpayer dollars are ending up in the pockets of trial lawyers. I am not usually accused of being a darling of the trial lawyers but they did a study to find out how much of the appeals and litigation cost was a factor. Only 2 percent of cost was because of litigation. Opponents of this amendment have argued many things in the past. The fact is that there are now only 200 jobs, and every single job, as the gentleman from New Jersey mentioned, is costing the taxpayer $200,000 in subsidies for each one of these. It makes absolutely no sense. That's why groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union are strongly in favor of this amendment, because they know that it makes no sense anymore to have tax dollars going in the amounts that they have been going. We spent almost $1 billion now subsidizing the building of roads in the Tongass. Again, I am not opposed to logging when it's done on the timber company's dime. But in this case, they are using the American taxpayer to subsidize these 200 jobs at the tune of $200,000 per job. That just makes no sense, and that's why I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I want to once again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be very brief. I appreciate the gentleman and I don't want to take time here. I would just make a couple of points. This amendment is long overdue. Taiwan is our friend. It is a longtime democratic ally and a major trading partner. Just across the Taiwan Strait you have Communist China, with its more than 900 missiles pointed directly at Taiwan. China operates under a dictatorship. Its human rights record is abysmal. It ignores the rule of law. It practices religious persecution. It warehouses political prisoners. It carries out an unconscionable coercive abortion policy. Yet when it comes to dealing with the two nations diplomatically, we often treat Taiwan like a pariah nation and kowtow to the Beijing bullies. So I would commend the gentleman from Colorado for bringing forth this amendment, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman for accepting the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my fellow Buckeye, Congresswoman Schmidt. I think we should take this moment to commemorate the passing of Donald Clancy. Mr. Speaker, Donald Clancy very honorably represented what was then the Second District, which is now essentially the First District that I represent. He actually lived in Jean Schmidt's district as well. This was truly a great man. I will not repeat all the details that the gentlewoman said, but he grew up basically on the West Side of Cincinnati and went to a rival high school. He went to Elder, I went to LaSalle. We went to rival law schools, both in Cincinnati, and both served on City Council. He was elected in 1960, but was defeated in 1976 by Tom Luken. Tom was obviously a Democrat. These were Tom's comments about Donald Clancy: ``He was a formidable opponent and well-regarded. People often asked what your relations really are with your opponents. I've never had a cross word with Don Clancy, because he was a good guy and a good friend. Clance served the district and the city very well. He was respected. I'd say he was loved by his constituents on the West side and throughout the city.'' This was truly someone I believe who will be remembered. He served both on the Ways and Means Committee and he served on the Armed Services Committee. His wife, Betty, his daughters, Patty and Kathy, and son, Dan, and three grand children I know are going to miss him, and we should keep them in our hearts and in our prayers. His political legacy will be carried on I believe by his daughter Patty, who is in the State senate now. I would ask our colleagues, there are still some here that served with him, if you wouldn't mind dropping a note to the family, I am sure they would greatly appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this up.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. We have been waiting for 5 months now to see on the House floor a package of reforms that largely reflect those that were in the Republican reform bill that passed the House last Congress over a year ago. Now that the majority has finally scheduled this reform legislation for consideration, the House has an opportunity to build on Republicans' previous reform efforts. This motion to recommit does just that. To strengthen the legislation, this motion to recommit would do the following: It would close the existing loophole that allows State and local government entities to give gifts and travel to Members and their staff that other entities can't give. This motion to recommit also contains a provision that could be described as a reverse revolving door provision. It would prohibit a congressional employee who was a registered lobbyist prior to his or her congressional employment from knowingly making during the course of official business any communication or appearance before their former private employer on a matter relating specifically to that former private employer for a period of 1 year. This motion to recommit would also require lobbyists to disclose which special projects they lobbied for. If a special interest lobbyist is having closed-door meetings with Members of Congress regarding programs that do not benefit all Americans but only benefit a small group of people in one part of the country, then this motion to recommit would require those projects be disclosed. Finally, this motion to recommit includes H.R. 2317 in the form that passed the House earlier today. With the inclusion of the amendment adopted by the motion to recommit, H.R. 2317 now requires that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be disclosed. Let me be clear: Mr. Emanuel said during the debate on this bill that this bill is the bill that will be conferenced with the Senate bill. Only by passing this motion to recommit can we guarantee that the vital fix we make to the bundling provisions in the previous motion to recommit will be conferenced with the Senate bill. This motion to recommit is the true test of Members' commitment to what they voted for earlier today. So if you voted for the previous motion to recommit and you really want the fix included in the conference, you must support this motion to recommit as well. The majority has brought to the floor a package that does not quite reach the standard set by House Republicans last Congress; but we all have this last opportunity today to show America that not only will we raise that standard to meet our efforts last Congress, but we will raise that standard even higher. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CHABOT. I am, in its current form.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2264, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007. First, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Conyers, for his hard work and his leadership on this bill. We have worked together in previous Congresses to move this bill, and I am very pleased to see it moving on the floor here today. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for their leadership in supporting the passage of this legislation as well. Since last week when we first considered this bill, gas prices have increased another 10 cents to a record level in this country of over $3.27 a gallon. Before heading to the airport to come back here from my district in Cincinnati, just yesterday, I filled up in my 1993 Buick and it was $3.19 in Cincinnati by the University of Cincinnati, $32. And my constituents back home in Cincinnati are very concerned, and rightly so, particularly as we enter the peak summer driving season, which begins this weekend. I happen to have a tele-town hall meeting where hundreds and hundreds, probably thousands of people in my district were on the line and we were talking about a range of issues, this issue, high gas prices in my district. And as Chairman Conyers mentioned, the State of Michigan has the highest in the whole country. People are really concerned about this; this is really hitting hard and it is something that we need to deal with in this Congress. I am very disappointed in the President that this message indicates, whether or not they know how to spell the word ``President,'' that they are going to veto this bill if it is passed. I think we ought to send it to the President and let the chips fall where they may. This is long overdue legislation. I urge its passage. The other issue, by the way, which was of great interest to my constituents last night in the tele-town hall meeting was, not surprisingly, the immigration issue. We heard the Senate reached an agreement just recently on, in my view, an extremely flawed agreement which is going to be debated over there and then debated over here. Those are the two principal issues my people back in Cincinnati are concerned about. These continued price hikes take their toll on consumers directly at the gas pump, as well as impacting their everyday lives and raising the cost of things like going to the grocery store or going to work or even planning a vacation. I mean, this is the time when people are deciding whether they are going to take the kids to King's Island up the road from my district in Cincinnati, or if they are going to go to Disney World down in Florida in Mr. Keller's area. But when you have gas prices at $3.20-plus per gallon, this is not only going to put a damper on vacation and disappointing our kids, but it is significantly going to weigh down this economy. I think there is no question that if gas prices remain this high, it is going to have a significant impact on the economy. Jobs and other things are at risk. Passing H.R. 2264 would be a positive first step to allaying concerns that the American public has expressed about these uncontrollable price surges. Over the last decade, it has become alarmingly clear that America is far too dependent on foreign oil to meet our energy needs. Disturbingly, we import, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, more than two-thirds of the oil we consume, much of it from OPEC, and much of it from some of the more unstable areas of the world--Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and of course we get some from Nigeria and Venezuela. As Mr. Keller mentioned, we have down there Mr. Chavez who seems to be following in the footsteps of Fidel Castro. Those are the types of countries that we are depending on for our oil, and that has to change. At the same time the number of refineries operating in the United States has decreased from over 300, 324 to be exact back in 1981, to fewer than 150, 148 to be exact. So we have cut the number of refineries available in half over that period of time, and we haven't built another oil refinery since 1976, over 30 years ago now. There is no doubt that we need to focus on both short-term and long- term strategies to address these issues. We need increased domestic production and refining capabilities, and we need to put a stronger emphasis on alternative energy and conservation efforts. But this strategy to make us less oil-dependent and to put us on more sound footing also has to include breaking up the cartels that play a primary role in manipulating, and I emphasize manipulating, the market. We talk about supply and demand and all that, but OPEC countries are manipulating the supply of oil in the world. For decades, OPEC nations have conspired, and again I emphasize that, conspired to limit supplies and to drive up prices of imported crude oil, gouging American consumers, in violation of our Nation's antitrust laws. OPEC accounts for more than two-thirds of the global oil production and exports more than 65 percent of the oil traded internationally. Thus, it's abundantly clear that OPEC's influence in the market dominates. H.R. 2264, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, attempts to break up this cartel and subject these colluders and their anticompetitive practices to the antitrust scrutiny that they so richly deserve. Specifically, this bill would amend the Sherman Act to make it illegal for foreign countries to collude, to restrain output or fix prices of oil, gas or any petroleum product. In addition, this bill gives the Attorney General the authority to enforce the antitrust provisions against these nations. Importantly, the bill also anticipates any protected nation defense or immunity that OPEC nations may proffer, specifically exempting them from the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act if they are engaged in price fixing, which they clearly are, or other anticompetitive activities with regard to pricing or production or distribution. This bill is a necessary and appropriate response to deal with those who are not willing to deal fairly with the American consumer. I urge my colleagues to support competition and consumers by supporting H.R. 2264. And I want to again thank Mr. Conyers for his leadership in this area. It's far overdue that we pass this act.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him and the folks on the other side of the aisle for their leadership in this area. I rise in support of H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvements Act of 2007. The COPS grant program represents a true partnership between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to fight crime. This partnership has enabled more police officers to be hired and rehired and facilitated the use of the most advanced crime-fighting technology to ensure that officers are effectively deployed into our communities all across the country. As a result of our joint efforts, the number of violent offenses reported in our country is down from the more than 1.8 million reported back in 1994 to 1.3 million reported in 2005. But we cannot become complacent. We must ensure that State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials have the resources they need to keep law enforcement on the streets. H.R. 1700 accomplishes this by increasing the funds available for the COPS program from $1 billion to $1.15 billion and by creating a number of new grant programs that will assist communities, such as community policing, crime prevention programs, and programs to address illegal drug manufacturing. Most importantly, the bill that we are considering today stays true to the COPS grant program's original purpose, that the Federal Government support State, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts, not supplant them, as the ranking member indicated. That would be the last thing that we should do. H.R. 1700, in its current form, requires that States, local, and tribal law enforcement demonstrate their commitment to the partnership by making a good-faith effort to match the funds provided by the Federal Government. Yet at the same time, the bill allows the Federal Government to play a primary role in those circumstances in which a grant recipient cannot meet their financial obligation for reasons beyond their control, thus ensuring that our communities remain safe and that crime does not prevail. H.R. 1700 is an important and necessary tool for law enforcement, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her leadership on this amendment and her hard work, as well as the chairwoman's. This is a simple amendment. The amendment increases the Federal government-wide goal for participation of small business concerns in procurement contracts from 23 percent to 30 percent. The bill, as currently written, would increase the Federal government-wide goal from 23 percent to 25 percent, which is only a 2 percent increase, which is really pretty miserable when one considers it. It ought to be, I think, significantly more than that, especially when you consider that the Federal market for goods and services has doubled in the past 10 years, and the number of small businesses has increased by 10 percent during that period of time. So to maintain the congressional standard in the Small Business Act that a fair share Federal government procurement contracts are awarded the small business concerns, this amendment increases the goal a modest 8 percent, which is, quite frankly, long overdue. Finally, the goal increase recognizes small business concern's role in the economy. Small businesses employ more than 50 percent of all employees in the United States, and this would cause increased competition, resulting in a downward pressure on pricing, which ultimately benefits the taxpayer. Small businesses are the main contributors to major technological paradigm breakthroughs, as opposed to simply advancing the current knowledge in a specific technological field. I think this is a very good amendment. I, again, want to thank the gentlelady for offering it.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady. We have no objection and support the amendment, and thank the gentleman for offering it.