Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This amendment, as the chairman previously indicated, is just unnecessary. If you go to the language of the bill itself, it indicates it is essentially illegal to knowingly transport a minor across the State line with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and so on. Now, clearly the taxicab driver's intent is to obtain the fare, not that the young girl receive an abortion. So this is really unnecessary. I might add, during the course of this debate we have heard a number of things. We had heard that parents, for example, that a girl is not protected under this proposed bill because perhaps there is a case of incest; perhaps the father is the one that actually was responsible for the girl becoming pregnant. Judicial bypass, as we all know, as it does under the various State laws, protects that particular situation so that is really not an issue. I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was exactly right when he said that in essence when you have somebody secreting a girl who is pregnant to have a secret abortion in another State, that is an assault on the family, and that is what we are trying to prevent. Again, the parents are in the best position to be able to determine what is in the best interest of that child. Finally, I just wanted to say we have heard this bill, which I think is a very good pill and has passed in this House three times before, we have heard it called by some folks on the other side ludicrous, laughable, cruel; but I just might note that the last time this bill was before this House, 58 Democrats, 58 folks on the other side of the aisle voted for this bill. And so that is a little more than 1 in 4 supported this bill. I think it is great legislation. I am very pleased we will once again take it up.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, CIANA, which was introduced by my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). I would also like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his leadership on this bill as well. CIANA's predecessor, the Child Custody Protection Act, received broad support, passing this House by over 100-vote margins on three separate occasions, including the 105th, the 106th, and the 107th Congresses. H.R. 748, introduced this session, was favorably reported out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution on March 17 and out of the full Committee on the Judiciary on April 13 of this year. Passing CIANA is critical to both protecting our minors as well as preserving the opportunity for parents to be involved in their children's decisions. The first section of CIANA, as our chairman mentioned, would make it a Federal crime to transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion in another State in circumvention of a State's parental notification law. The primary purpose of the first section is to prevent people, including abusive boyfriends and older men, and oftentimes we have seen people in their twenties and we have seen girls 15, 16, 17 years of age here, so oftentimes it is statutory rape, from pressuring these young girls into circumventing their State's parental involvement laws by receiving secret out-of-State abortions, unknown to their parents. The parents are the ones that ought to be involved in making these oftentimes life-altering decisions, not some abusive boyfriend, not some older man whose interests are to protect himself and perhaps to do away with the evidence. He does not have that girl's best interests in mind. The parents are the ones that ought to be involved in making this decision. CIANA recognizes certain exemptions to the act's requirements, including instances in which a life-threatening emergency may require an abortion be provided immediately; instances in which the abortion provider is presented with court papers showing that the parental involvement law in effect in the minor's home State has been complied with; and instances in which the minor states that she has been the victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider informs the appropriate State authorities of such abuse so that it can be prevented. The statistics show that approximately 80 percent of the public favors parental notification laws, and as recently as last month, 75 percent of 1,500 registered voters favored requiring parental notification before a minor could get an abortion, with only 18 percent opposing parental notification. Forty-four States have enacted some form of parental involvement statute. Twenty-three of these States enforce statutes that require the consent or notification of at least one parent or court authorization before a young girl can obtain an abortion, including my State, the State of Ohio. Such laws reflect the widespread agreement that the parents of a pregnant minor are best suited to provide counsel and guidance and support as the girl decides whether to continue her pregnancy or to undergo an abortion. The Subcommittee on the Constitution heard firsthand about this life- altering procedure, as our chairman mentioned. We had the mother of a young girl. This young girl was essentially pressured by the boyfriend and the boyfriend's parents. This young girl's parents thought they were sending her to school; she was then taken out of State, from Pennsylvania into New Jersey, where an abortion was performed on her. The parents and the boyfriend, they went out and had lunch while she is undergoing this abortion. This girl did not want to go through with it to begin with. They pressured her, and when she got there, she said she did not want to go through with it. That was the evidence in the committee. She was told by them if you do not go through with this, you do not have a way to get back home. So she would have been stuck there. The mother found out about this, and the daughter, she said, still cries about this constantly; that she wishes she could go back and undo what happened to her, but obviously it is too late. The parents should have been entitled to have been involved in this process, but, unfortunately, too often that is not the case if they are being pressured by the boyfriend or some abusive adult. Parents such as Mrs. Carroll should be given the chance to be involved in these life- altering decisions. Confused and frightened young girls who find themselves in these situations are routinely influenced and assisted by adults in obtaining abortions and are encouraged to avoid parental involvement by crossing State lines. These girls are often guided by those who do not share the love and affection that the parents do. It should be the parents involved. Parental involvement is critical. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The gentlewoman said she has not heard a single case in which this law would have affected anything. I will send her the transcript of a witness at our hearing, Marcia Carroll, whose daughter was taken. An abortion was provided for that daughter. That daughter said she would do anything to undo what happened that day and that this is something the family should have some involvement in.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, too often the dignity and respect that crime victims deserve are lost in the system, a system that is supposed to ensure justice for all. Last October Congress passed and the President signed into law the Justice For All Act which brought some justice back to victims through an established and enforceable set of rights, including the right to be present during proceedings, the right to confront assailants in proceedings, and the right to be notified about the release or escape of the perpetrator from custody. If these funds are diverted from the Victims of Crime Act Fund, crime victims will suffer again. The Victims of Crime Act Fund, VOCA, was established by Congress in 1984 as a way to ensure the continued support and protection for the victims of crime. It is funded through fines, forfeitures, and fees assessed against criminal defendants and is directed toward states where it is used to provide services to those organizations that serve crime victims. It is not funded through general tax revenue. In my own district in Cincinnati the organization ProKids is one such organization that benefits from VOCA funding. ProKids trains special court appointed advocates to serve as a voice for children who have been abused or neglected. VOCA funds provide a substantial portion of the organization's operating budget, without which the protection that ProKids provides to children will end. We cannot continue to deny those who suffer most from crime. I urge my colleagues to oppose using these funds for any purpose other than for which Congress intended.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this long overdue legislation. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his leadership and his efforts in making this bill a reality. It represent years of work, compromise and what I believe to be necessary reforms. Our bankruptcy laws have shifted away from what was their original purpose. In 1915 the Supreme Court wrote that our bankruptcy laws were intended to give honest debtors a chance to ``start afresh, free from obligations and responsibilities consequent upon business misfortunes.'' This view was later reaffirmed in the 1934 case, Local Loan Company v. Hunt, in which the court wrote that ``the purpose of the act has been again and again emphasized by the courts in that it gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt.'' Over the last several decades, bankruptcy protections have expanded to cover basically anyone and everyone, not just those who truly need it. Statistics reveal that in 2004 approximately 1.5 million individuals sought bankruptcy protection. Increasingly, this protection is being sought for the consumer debt that has skyrocketed out of control as a result of the misuse of credit cards and other credit options. This expansive coverage comes at a price. Personal bankruptcy filing cost businesses and our economy tens of billions of dollars every year. It is basically a $500 per family annual tax on each and every American family. H.R. 685 the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, the bill that is here before us today, strikes a balance. It requires those who have the means to repay debts to do so while protecting those who truly need the assistance provided by chapter 7, such as those with serious medical conditions, the men and women of our armed services who are on active duty, as well as those disabled veterans who served in years past. Decisions to seek the protection of bankruptcy should be taken seriously. The consequences of filing are not just personal but impact our economy and society as a whole. As I mentioned, it is $600 per family that we are essentially taxed this year for everybody who is paying their debts from those who are not. Personal filings cannot continue at the current rate. This bill represents a long overdue, much necessary first step; and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I very much thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to first, Mr. Speaker, commend the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the full committee, for bringing this timely and important resolution to the floor. The so-called anti- secession legislation adopted by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China will unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, in direct contradiction of the policy of the United States Government. The Taiwan Relations Act, enacted by this Congress in 1979, declares that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait are in the political, security and economic interests of the United States. The legislation adopted by the Chinese People's Congress which states that China ``shall employ nonpeaceful means'' in the event of Taiwan's moving toward independence clearly threatens that peace and stability. The people of Taiwan want peace. Taiwan's democratically elected President, Chen Shui-bian, whom I have met with many times, has repeatedly shown his determination to maintaining peace, stability and the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, and the Beijing dictatorship has responded by pointing over 600 missiles at Taiwan, and now by enacting a threatening anti-secession law. The future of Taiwan should be determined by the people of Taiwan. Any effort by the Communist leadership in the People's Republic of China to deny a free people in Taiwan a safe, prosperous and democratic future should be condemned. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. I am very pleased that it is being taken up by the Congress here today. It deserves the utmost attention. I want to thank again the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for bringing this forward. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for whom I have great respect and has been a leader in this area for many years and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) as well.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the REAL ID Act, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his efforts in this matter. It is very important. This bill is about common sense. It is about protecting our borders and making our country safer. The 9/11 Commission report revealed many disconcerting facts, none more unnerving than the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers who were here temporarily obtained valid driver's licenses, enabling them to travel freely about the country. That is absurd, and the American people know it. This bill finally does something about that absurdity. We cannot continue to let our laws be exploited and circumvented by future terrorists to further their plans of violence, destruction, and murder. With the REAL ID Act in place, we can better prevent future tragic events from occurring. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this critical piece of legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The European Union imposed a ban on arms sales to the People's Republic of China following the Tiananmen Square Massacre back in 1989. In recent months it has become apparent that European nations, seeing an opportunity to profit from China's large-scale military modernization program, may well be prepared to lift that embargo in the near future, and I believe that would be a terrible mistake. In a November 30, 2004, letter to the President of the European Union, 25 Members of this body who opposed the lifting of the arms embargo stressed that such a decision would alter the current fragile military balance across the Taiwan Straits. It would rapidly tip the balance in the PRC's favor. In the last year alone, China has added more than 100 missiles to its arsenal, bringing to more than 600 the number pointed directly across the Taiwan Straits at Taiwan. The EU's imminent decision to lift the arms embargo would further isolate that island nation and endanger its sovereignty and the safety of its citizens. A lifting of the European arms embargo and further modernization of China's army would also create new dangers for the United States and its Asian allies. If we were ever to be called upon, and I hope this never happens, but if we were ever called upon to intervene in an Asian military crisis, the lives of our servicemen and women would be increasingly endangered. Mr. Speaker, our European neighbors need to think long and hard about the short- and long-term negative effects of the lifting of the arms embargo. Stability in Asia is all too important to dismiss for the sake of short-term profits for European arms dealers. I thank the chairman for bringing this important resolution to the floor in such a timely manner. I particularly thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for doing this, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Cincinnati Bengals once again will not be in the Super Bowl this year. Maybe next year. But Cincinnati is blessed with some of the best high school football in the Nation. In fact, for the last 3 years in a row the Ohio State champs have been from my district, from Cincinnati, twice Elder, and now Colerain High School. What a team. They so dominated this year that they went undefeated 15 and zero, and in the final playoff game defeated arguably the second best team in the State by 40 points, and on the rival's home field. So often we hear that a team's character is a reflection of its head coach. Never before has this statement been so true. Dedication, tenacity, and heart are all words that come to mind when describing Head Coach Kerry Coombs. In his 13 years at the helm, Coach Coombs has not only built one of the most successful high school programs in the country; more importantly, he has positively influenced the lives of countless young men. So congratulations to Colerain's players, coaches, students, parents, and fans. You have made us all proud.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let us face it. This is nothing more or less than an attempt to sow doubt on the legitimacy of this President. It is an attempt to weaken President Bush, and it is unfortunate because we have much work to do in this House and in the Senate putting this country on the right track. On November 2, 2004, George W. Bush received a majority of the votes cast in this country, including the State of Ohio, the State that I happen to be a Member of this House. As a Congressman from Cincinnati, Ohio, I had an opportunity to go to dozens of polling places, both in urban areas in my city of Cincinnati and also in suburban areas. I have talked to many, many people; and most people agree that this election was conducted professionally and fairly and freely. News sources reporting on the elections have said that few mainstream politicians doubt President Bush's victory. However, rather than certifying the 2004 election in accordance with the Constitution and Federal law and starting the work that we were elected to do, we are forced today to engage in essentially partisan debate by our colleagues across the aisle. That is most unfortunate. A nonpartisan group such as electionline.org that pushed for election reform placed Ohio at the top of the list. Let us get back to our business.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take a moment to recognize the achievements of an exceptional high school volleyball team from my district, St. Bernard in Cincinnati, the Roger Bacon Lady Spartans. On November 13, Roger Bacon defeated Millersburg West Holmes to capture Ohio's Division II State volley ball championship. The Lady Saprtans dominated the final match by winning three straight games, while also capping off the season with an impressive 27-game winning streak. This is an extraordinary accomplishment because Cincinnati has some tremendous high school girls volley ball teams, Mother Mercy and St. Ursula and Seton and Mt. Notre Dame and McCauley, just to name a few. It is a great honor for me to recognize the success and achievements of these outstanding young women and their coach, Caryl Schawe, and the entire staff. Their hard work and dedication have made our entire community proud. Congratulations to Roger Bacon.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time. September 11, 2001, changed our world. It changed the way in which we must deal with terrorism and the way in which we, as a country, must protect ourselves. Since then, Congress and the administration have taken steps to help better protect our Nation at home and abroad. We have provided law enforcement with enhanced investigative tools and improved our ability to coordinate activities designed to protect against the future threat of terrorism. Yet these actions are not enough to guarantee our Nation's security or freedom. The 9/11 Commission report and recommendations showed us that security and freedom can only be accomplished through continued vigilance and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. But these broad antiterrorism efforts do not have to come at the price of our rights here at home. The joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on the Constitution reaffirmed that ignoring important civil liberties will not only erode our freedoms but would undermine legitimate efforts to increase our security here at home. The directives set out in H.R. 10, requiring Federal agencies to consider, for example, the impact that proposed and final rules have on an individual's privacy and establishing chief privacy officers within agencies that conduct law enforcement and antiterrorism activities, and establishing a civil liberties protection officer within the Office of the National Intelligence Director and a Civil Liberties Protection Board, ensures that effective antiterrorism measures do not come at the price of our constitutional principles. I am confident that both Houses will come together on this issue to ensure that we continue to improve our intelligence capabilities, strengthen our defenses, and stay one step ahead of the terrorists. I want to again thank and commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Congressman Sensenbrenner), the Committee on the Judiciary's chair, for his leadership on these issues.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and thank him for his leadership, particularly the aspect of the bill which promotes and supports victims of crime. Providing crime victims with dignity and respect through an established and enforceable set of rights ensures that justice is not reserved only for the accused but extends to those who have personally been affected by the crimes. And after all, we have thousands and thousands of people in this country that are affected in an adverse way by crime every single year. The proposal before us today, the Justice For All Act, H.R. 5107, draws heavily from the Crime Victim's Rights legislation providing victims with substantive enforceable rights such as the right to be present during proceedings and the right to confront assailants at those proceedings and the right to be notified about the release or escape of the perpetrator from custody. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) also for including in the bill protections that DNA testing can afford families who may have members missing or their remains unidentified. I want to particularly thank and recognize the courageous person in the greater Cincinnati area, that is Deborah Culberson, who lost her daughter, Keri, to a terrible murder, and the perpetrator is behind bars, but they have not been able to locate or identify her daughter's remains. And she has stepped forward and she has been just a very forceful person behind making sure that we have a DNA database which families who have lost loved ones may be able to identify and, therefore, provide at least some closure to that family. It is a terrible tragedy. This may not directly benefit her, but it may benefit others in the future who face these tragedies in their own families. There is no question that the rights afforded by H.R. 5107 are a positive step toward making certain justice is served not only for the accused but for the innocent victims. I would strongly encourage very strong bipartisan support for this legislation. It is important legislation. Some of it is a first step and many of us think we may in the future be able to go further. But I think this is a very positive step. I want to once again thank and recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for having the courage to bring this forth. Our Constitution is one of our country's most sacred documents. It is the fulfillment of the promises made in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the backbone of our system of government. It identifies our rights as citizens, the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government, and identifies the limits that prevent government overreaching. It also ensures that our system of government remains a democratic system, whereby the people, through their elected Representatives and officials, make laws. This means a form of government under which laws are passed by the duly elected Representatives of the people, not by judges. Amending our Constitution is the most democratic process in our Federal system of government, requiring two-thirds of each House of Congress and three-quarters of the State legislatures in order to pass a constitutional amendment. But it has been done and should only be done when principles for governing and for existing in society need to be stated. The best example of this is the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments were added to the Constitution to ensure that principles that were so important, that were fundamental for governing and living, were explicitly referenced in the Constitution in advance of any adverse judicial ruling. We find ourselves in a similar situation today. There should be no disagreement that traditional marriage, as defined throughout our history, is under attack by liberal activists and rogue judges. The only real question at hand is how to protect this important cornerstone of our society. This issue was first raised with me when I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the 107th Congress. At that time I clearly stated my preference to consider all possible legislative options before pursuing a constitutional amendment. I also felt that we should wait to learn the results of ongoing litigation. My hope had been that the courts would not attempt to alter our social fabric and, instead, leave the issue where it belongs, before Congress and the State legislatures. Obviously, that has not been the case. In response to judicial decisions and the attempt by elected officials in several communities to approve same-sex marriages in violation of their own State laws, I called for a series of hearings to consider different options for maintaining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. During those hearings, we heard from many experts that provided us with extensive information on legal and social issues. Perhaps most important to this debate we reviewed the status of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the consequences that would result from a judge striking down that important legislation. DOMA's status is at risk. Judge Robert Bork, for example, one of the witnesses, stated in testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution during the hearing on the amendment, ``I think DOMA is absolutely a dead letter constitutionally; not because it would be under the original Constitution, but because it is the way this Supreme Court is behaving.'' Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School has stated, ``Same-sex marriage is bound to follow. It is only a question of time.'' As a result, our national definition of marriage and the important role that marriage plays in our society more than likely will be changed forever, and it will not be for the better. Once that change is made and forced on every State in our Union, it will be virtually impossible to reverse. Mr. Speaker, marriage is an institution, not a right. The hearings confirm this. Congress is obligated to support the means that best protect this institution that has been a part of our history. The marriage protection amendment states as follows: ``Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of a union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the Constitution of any State shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'' That is what it states. The first sentence of this amendment ensures that a common definition of marriage, that between a man and a woman, exists for the entire Nation. This will preclude attempts by the judiciary or State legislatures to determine otherwise. The second sentence will prevent the courts from interpreting the Federal Constitution or State constitution to require a legislative body or an executive agency to enact or recognize marriage and its benefits on a civil union or domestic partnership. The second sentence also ensures that State legislatures are able to define for themselves the status of civil unions and domestic partnerships and the resulting benefits. One way or another, we know that the Constitution will be amended. The question is, is it done the appropriate way, or is it done by unelected, activist judges?

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my comments would be generally around an article which appeared by one of my colleagues whom I greatly respect, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who spoke out against this amendment. I generally agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), but I have to respectfully disagree with him on this particular item. Traditional marriage, let us face it, is under attack for the very reasons that my colleague from California (Mr. Cox) had cited in that article. We need a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage from the courts. For the reasons cited by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, we cannot trust the courts to interpret the law as it was intended. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) cited in the article: ``The judicial imagination continues to thrive.'' While I believe that rights under the 14th amendment should evolve, there must be checks. The Marriage Protection Amendment will check this imagination and protect marriage as it was intended. The need for a Federal marriage amendment is simple. The traditional institution of marriage is under Federal constitutional attack in the courts. Legal experts across the political spectrum agree that the only way to guarantee and preserve the status quo, and the traditional institution of marriage, is a Federal constitutional amendment. Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Lawrence v. Texas in June of 2003, legal experts predicted that courts would begin to strike down traditional marriage laws around the country. Indeed, one justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has already written, while serving as general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, that traditional marriage laws such as anti-bigamy laws are unconstitutional and must be struck down by the courts. A State constitutional amendment cannot solve this problem. Just ask Nebraska, whose State constitutional amendment is currently under Federal constitutional attack. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) had acknowledged, even the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relied on the 14th amendment, a Federal constitutional provision, to invalidate traditional marriage laws in that State. At least six Federal constitutional challenges to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, are now pending in four States: Florida, Minnesota, Washington, and California. A representative of the Lambda Legal organization, a champion of the nationwide litigation campaign to abolish traditional marriage laws in every State, recently stated, ``We won't stop until we have same-sex marriage nationwide.'' The only way to stop the lawsuits and to ensure the protection of traditional marriage is a constitutional amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this. I also want to thank and recognize the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his determination in protecting the Pledge of Allegiance in this country. I wish to also express my support, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, for H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. When the issue of limiting Federal Court jurisdiction was raised during the discussions of the Marriage Protection Act, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing examining Congress' authority to do this. During the hearing, testimony was heard by a number of constitutional experts. While there was mixed opinion on whether Congress should exercise its authority, there was a consensus that Congress did in fact have the authority under Article III of the Constitution to determine what issues were heard by the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction and by the lower Federal courts. This point was highlighted most recently by the Dean of Stanford Law School who wrote, ``The Constitution leaves room for countless political responses to an overly assertive court. Congress can strip it of jurisdiction. The means are available, and they have been used to great effect when necessary; used, we should note, not by disreputable or failed leaders, but by some of the most admired presidents and Congresses in American history.'' As we continue the debate today, I would urge each Member of Congress to recite to himself or herself the Pledge of Allegiance that we are talking about and ask yourself what it means to you. It deserves protection. It defines not only our national heritage, but unites our society each time it is recited. We cannot let rogue Federal judges redefine our country's history and the basis from which our Founding Fathers found guidance and strength when constructing our great country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2028.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the current and former members of the Fernald Fire Department for their distinguished service in protecting the former nuclear site and the surrounding community for the past 50 years. Fernald was a major hub in America's nuclear weapons complex during the Cold War. Located about 25 miles north of Cincinnati, in Crosby Township, the site's primary charge was to produce metal uranium--an important and potentially dangerous job demanding skill and courage. The firefighters serving at Fernald share these same admirable qualities. For the last half-century, the department's men and women-- professionals and volunteers--have provided outstanding emergency response service to the Fernald site and the residents of Crosby Township. The department responds to hundreds of medical emergencies and house-fires every year--they made about 300 runs last year alone. Mr. Speaker, firefighters, like the men and women of the Fernald Fire Department, have always played an important role in keeping Americans safe. That role has never been more vital or deserving of our admiration and respect than in the post-September 11 world. Whether in New York City or a rural community in southwestern Ohio the sacrifice and bravery of America's firefighters is on display every day--running toward the smoke and flames. Saving lives. Later this year, the Fernald Fire Department will close its doors one last time after a job well done. They will leave behind their equipment and their service to a grateful community. I want to thank the past and present members of the Fernald Fire Department for their dedication and sacrifice in making Fernald and Crosby Township safer places to live and work.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Over the past decade, our Nation has witnessed an explosion of civil lawsuits. Large jury awards and settlements have produced an ever- growing number of actions in Federal and State courts, costing the American people more than $200 billion each year and really drastically reshaping our civil justice system. Tort liability was developed to hold responsible those parties who injure or harm others through actions determined to be negligent or reckless or careless. However, civil actions are increasingly being used to harass and threaten and manipulate innocent parties, undermining the credibility and traditional notions of justice in this country. In 1993, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal safeguard against Federal lawsuits, was weakened, thereby making frivolous claims easier to file. Those changes to Rule 11 provided judges with more leeway to avoid sanctioning attorneys who filed meritless claims. For example, the rule changes allowed trial attorneys a 21-day ``safe-harbor period'' to correct or withdraw meritless claims without fear of penalty, often at the expense of innocent defendants. While a number of initiatives have been introduced in Congress to reform specific aspects of the tort system, such as medical malpractice reform, small business reform, and product liability reform, or the 18- year Statute of Repose, the legislation that is being offered on the floor today seeks to reduce frivolous lawsuits on a broader scale. Restoring Rule 11, with its intended authority and expanding its applicability, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act will put teeth back into the safeguard against frivolous claims. This legislation will remove the safe-harbor provision I mentioned before, it would authorize judges to impose sanctions, including monetary, against attorneys and parties who file meritless claims, it would extend sanctions to discovery, and it would extend Rule 11 claims that affect interstate commerce. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for his leadership not only on this debate today but over the last several years as we have all come together to fight this war against international terrorism. I also want to thank the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Having served on the Committee on International Relations for the last 10 years, I have had an opportunity to observe firsthand the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Although we do not agree on everything, hearing him speak in the committee is like attending a seminar because of the insight and knowledge he has. Even though this institution sometimes people would say reeks with partisanship, that particular committee under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is an example of true bipartisanship and doing what is right for the country. I thank these gentlemen for their hard work on the Committee on International Relations. We are here as Members of Congress to honor those who lost their lives on that terrible day and the families that have had to suffer through this terrible tragedy. There were so many heroes in New York and also here in Washington, D.C. because the Pentagon as well was struck and many lives were taken there, but also in that field in Pennsylvania where the fourth plane went down and those passengers on that plane had the opportunity to talk with their loved ones because they had cell phones. Prior to this incident, whenever there had been a hijacking in this country, and thank God we have not had one for many years in this country, but when there was one, most people assumed they would want to have prisoners released in some other community or something of that nature. No one really anticipated that planes would be flown into buildings, but they talked to their loved ones and they found out what was happening and what happened with the first three planes, so they were determined that would not happen again. Because they were willing to give up their lives in trying to take back that plane, this building that we are in today, the United States Capitol Building, or the building down the street, the White House, stands, whereas they might well have been destroyed and many lives been taken had they not been willing to sacrifice their lives. But I have always felt those passengers, those innocent passengers on those other three planes would have done the same thing had they been aware of what was happening, but no one could have known. We want to continue to acknowledge the heroes that went into those twin towers on that fateful morning and tried to save other people's lives. There are so many Americans that showed what this country is all about; and we know that we are, after all, the target of these terrorist groups because of what we stand for. We are that city on the hill that Ronald Reagan referred to, and we must always remember that we must be in this battle against international terrorism for the long term because they ultimately attack us for what we stand for, and that is freedom. Not only freedom for Americans in this country, but freedom for people all around the world who do not at this time live in freedom; but when we prevail in this war against international terrorism, there are many people around the globe that will have the same freedoms that we have in this country.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), along with ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for introducing this bipartisan resolution as we approach the third anniversary of September 11. Every American remembers where they were that fateful morning of September 11, 2001. That day, we realized that the world had fundamentally changed. We were introduced to a faceless enemy that wants to destroy our very way of life. Today we have the solemn privilege of honoring and remembering not only those innocent Americans who lost their lives in these horrific acts, but also those whose loved ones were so violently taken from them. Since that tragic day, America has responded with determination. Al Qaeda is on the run. Two-thirds of its known leaders have been killed or captured, and a brutal dictator with terrorist ties and a proven appetite for weapons of mass destruction sits in an Iraqi jail. We have worked in cooperation with our allies to take the fight to the terrorists. We have worked aggressively to make our homeland more secure. But we must do more. On this third observance of the September 11 terrorist attacks, let us keep in mind that the freedom that we as Americans have come to enjoy is a precious thing that can never be taken for granted. The world is a dangerous place, with dark forces that are actively seeking to deny us our cherished liberty. We take heart in the noble and courageous example that has been set by the men and women of our Armed Forces fighting terrorists and the dictators that harbor them around the globe so we do not have to fight them on our streets and in our cities. As we go about our daily lives, let us never forget those innocent Americans who were killed that September morning and those who sacrificed their lives in the hopes of saving others.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for proposing this legislation and his leadership as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act. This legislation prevents unelected lifetime appointed Federal judges from striking down the protections Congress afforded States through the Defense of Marriage Act. The fact of the matter remains that marriage between a man and a woman has been and continues to be the cornerstone of our society. If we are going to change that, if we are going to make two men able to be married or two women able to be married in this country, and I do not think we should, but if we were, it ought to be done through the will of the people, and the will of the people is expressed through their elected representatives, either at the State legislature, whatever State they are located within, or the Congress of the United States, should we determine to take that on nationally. Rather than having the elected representatives do this, it has been done piecemeal by a rogue mayor, for example, in San Francisco, or a court by a 4 to 3 decision in Massachusetts. So clearly what has happened here, and this is an issue that some on the other side of the aisle might think that Members on this side of the aisle want to be debating today, well, this is an issue which has been thrust upon us by rogue mayors and rogue courts, not something we chose but something we have to do. The Subcommittee on the Constitution that I chair held four hearings focusing on the status of marriage in the United States. One of the hearings focused specifically on the issue we are considering today. That hearing clearly demonstrated that we could, if we wished, constitutionally strengthen the Defense of Marriage Act and limit the ability of activist Federal judges to force one State's controversial marriage laws on any other State by passing this legislation. We can clearly constitutionally do this. Now as my colleagues know, in 1996 the House overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act by a 342-67 vote. The Senate voiced similar support passing DOMA by a vote of 85-14. It was later signed into law by President Clinton. In passing DOMA, Congress recognized that controversial views on marriage adopted in one State should not be forced on other States. Understanding that marriage as defined by a State would have an impact across State lines, Congress exercised its authority under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the full faith and credit clause, to protect States right. Under this provision, ``full faith and credit should be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.'' Today, 44 States have enacted laws defining marriage as between a man and woman. That is 88 percent of the States, and 86 percent of the population throughout the country. So far, 38 States have specifically rejected the recognition of same sex marriage licenses granted out of State. Unfortunately, the will of the States could be jeopardized by Federal judges. That is the point of this legislation. H.R. 3313 will protect the provision of DOMA that keeps final authority of the will of the States with the States, not with Federal judges. Let me make something very clear. If Members voted for the Defense of Marriage Act or purport to support it now, Members must logically vote for the Marriage Protection Act, this law. Voting against this legislation will undermine DOMA and potentially force same-sex marriages on all 50 States. The Constitution allows Congress to protect DOMA through judicial limitations set forth in H.R. 3313. Together, Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, provide that the Federal courts derive authority solely from Congress and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to such exceptions and such regulations as the Congress shall make. Moreover, this authority was made clear as far back as the first Judiciary Act of 1789, which according to leading scholars ``is widely viewed as an indicator of the original understanding of Article III.'' Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is very important.

Mr. CHABOT

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

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, each year, through the Market Access Program, known as MAP, Congress gives tens of millions of dollars away to industry groups to advertise their products in other countries. It is called the Market Access Program because it sounds better than the corporate welfare program. But, Mr. Chairman, it is, in actuality, one in the same. This year, the Department of Agriculture is doling out $125 million of the American taxpayers' money to various groups to advertise their wares overseas. Well over $1 billion has been given away in the name of market access or market promotion over the years; this amid record budget deficits and a still-recovering economy. So who is getting money from MAP, and how much are they getting? The U.S. Meat Export Federation is getting $10.6 million just this year. Pistachio, prune, papaya, pear, pet food, and popcorn groups are all getting handouts, $5.9 million. As is the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, a little over $5,000. And the National Watermelon Promotion Board, $133,952. Now, these groups should advertise. I think it is good they are advertising their products overseas. And if they sell them, that helps in this country. But it ought to be done with their money and not with the taxpayers' money. Supporters, of course, will claim this so-called business and government partnership creates jobs. However, studies by the GAO indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S. agricultural exports. Further, it gives money to companies that would undertake this advertising without this unwarranted government subsidy. Let me give one example of the kind of outrage that this program generates. While I have used this illustration before in past years when we have tried to get rid of this program, unsuccessfully I might add, unfortunately, I would like to use it again. I think it really does bear repeating. Many people probably remember the popular ``Heard It Through the Grapevine'' raisin commercial, sponsored by the California Raisin Board. Well, based on the success of the commercial, MAP decided it would be a good idea to use that commercial to attempt to boost raisin sales in Japan and put $3 million into this project. Unfortunately, however, the ads, first of all, were in English, leaving many Japanese unaware that the dancing characters were raisins. Most thought they were potatoes or chocolate. In addition, many Japanese children were afraid of these wrinkled misshapen figures. They were actually frightened by these things on TV. If this were not such a colossal waste of taxpayer hard-earned money, it would be funny. However this is the kind of wasteful spending that inevitably occurs when we give someone the ability to spend someone else's money. That is what this program does. Again, I am all for these groups advertising their products and selling them overseas; but they should do it with their money, not with taxpayer money. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would simply stop the Department of Agriculture from funding the MAP program. It would save the taxpayers' millions of dollars, as much as $200 million annually by 2006. Back in 1996, we reformed welfare for the poor. I think it is about time that we reformed or, in this case, got rid of welfare for the wealthy. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to join me and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and many others, including the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and U.S. PIRG, in casting a vote for the overburdened American taxpayer. I strongly urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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