Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in concluding, I remember hearing this decision when it came over my car radio and just shaking my head and thinking of all the other people in my State that are out there hearing this same court decision. It is one of the things that I think makes people wonder about their government and what is going on here. It is just such a ludicrous decision. It is almost incomprehensible. It is incomprehensible to me that every morning we can pray in this Chamber before we start business here; that we can have a visiting rabbi, a priest, a minister, people of many different religions who come in here and start in the People's House the first session every morning with prayer; that we can have on the wall in front of us right now, ``In God We Trust''; that we could have on our money, the currency that goes all around our country every day on behalf of our government and says ``In God We Trust,'' yet it is somehow unconstitutional for the State of Ohio to have a very similar phrase, ``In God All Things Are Possible''; that that is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, I think that is just incomprehensible. It makes absolutely no sense. I certainly hope that the court's decision is overturned by the higher level in the court system. I feel very confident that it will be, but I think it is important that this House, the People's House, does express a sense of the House of Representatives that the Ohio State motto is constitutional. I think that is appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for proposing this particular resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I realize that Secretary Richardson has his hands full trying to find our nuclear secrets from Los Alamos that were apparently lost when they were moved to protect them from the out-of- control fire that was actually started by our own government. Nevertheless, the Secretary and other high-ranking administration officials need to acknowledge and respond to what has become a critical problem throughout the country. Working families in Cincinnati, my district and elsewhere, are facing skyrocketing prices at the gas pump, and they need relief now. Earlier this year, Secretary Richardson responded to rising gasoline prices by saying, we were caught napping. We got complacent. Earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said, but we are in the busy season where prices generally go up a bit. Well, they are closing in on $2 a gallon in Cincinnati. That is not a bit; that is a lot. President Clinton has substantial executive powers that can be used to send a strong message to the price-fixing OPEC cartel. He has chosen not to use them. It is time we got serious about this and let us do something about the gas prices in this country.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Internal Revenue Service burdens the American people with so many taxes it often seems we are taxed on virtually every move we make and every breath we draw. So it is not surprising to learn that when we stop moving and drawing breath, the IRS taxes us for that, too. Every year, thousands of grieving families are hit unexpectedly with an unfair provision of law called the death tax. This provision of law is so burdensome it prevents more than three out of four small businesses from surviving to the next generation. Death taxes reduce potential employment opportunities, encourage consumption instead of responsible saving and investing, and undermine the premise of the American dream, which assures that hard, honest work will be rewarded. Let us show the American people that the American dream is still alive. Let us today vote to repeal the unfair death tax.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, imagine an American working and sacrificing their entire life, hoping to one day be able to pass the fruits of their hard work on to their family. Then imagine that after they die, the Federal Government swoops down like an enormous vulture, grabs what they have earned and saved as if it is a carcass, and tosses the remains to their relatives. That, Mr. Speaker, is the death tax. Every year, the death tax ravages thousands of family-owned businesses and farms to the tune of $46 billion in tax penalties and administrative costs. No American family should be forced to pay 60 percent of their savings and their business or their farm in taxes when a loved one dies. By repealing the death tax, we will help to preserve thousands of family-owned farms and small businesses across the country that will not have to be sold just to pay this onerous tax. Mr. Speaker, we are not just ending a tax; we are attempting to preserve the American dream.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, first let me express my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his long-standing leadership in this issue. He has been a real advocate for those families who have been victimized by international parental child abduction. All of us who have worked on this issue appreciate his stewardship. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his leadership on this very important issue; and I want to particularly thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the principal cosponsor of the bipartisan resolution. As the founder and chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, he has worked tirelessly on behalf of abducted children. He comes down here every single day and gives a speech on a different particular case that has happened and he has devoted a lot of time and a lot of effort on this issue and to the families and he has been a very effective partner in this legislative effort. More than 130 cosponsors have joined in this effort to bring attention to the tragedy of international parental child abduction. I know the families of those children appreciate the support of Members of Congress like the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler); the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman); the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose); and so many others. I would also particularly like to thank my legislative director Kevin Fitzpatrick who spent many, many hours working on this issue and talking with someone in my district who has been hit with this on a personal basis. I first became aware of this issue on a personal level when a gentleman by the name of Tom Sylvester from my hometown of Cincinnati, his daughter Carina was abducted by her mother in 1995 and taken to Austria where she remains today. Despite a number of court orders in both the United States and in Austria, including an order by the Austrian Supreme Court that clearly ruled that the child should be returned to Tom Sylvester, Carina has not been returned to her father. During the last 5 years, he has only been able to see her briefly and in a supervised setting. Every attempt to bring Carina home has been met with rejection by Austria. Every attempt to seek justice from the Austrian government has been stonewalled, and it is time that Tom Sylvester got his daughter Carina back to the United States. That is where she belongs. During a hearing on the Committee on International Relations in March of this year, I had the opportunity to discuss Tom Sylvester's case with Secretary of State Madeline Albright. The Secretary promised to bring up the case during her discussions with the Austrian government, and she committed to a meeting with Mr. Sylvester, myself, and my colleague, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman). Hopefully, that meeting will take place soon. By personally engaging in this issue, the Secretary will be expressing her solidarity with all of those parents throughout the country who face the same painful ordeal that Tom Sylvester faces every day, and she will be sending a strong message to those offending countries who fail to honor their obligations under the Hague Convention that the United States Government is serious about bringing our children home. House Concurrent Resolution 293 is very straightforward. We are urging all contracting parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to comply fully with both the letter and the spirit of their international legal obligations under the convention; to ensure their compliance by enacting effective implementing legislation and educating their judicial and law enforcement authorities; and to honor their commitments and return wrongfully abducted children to their place of habitual residence and ensure parental access rights by removing obstacles to the exercise of those rights. Mr. Speaker, thousands of American parents wake up each morning with a glimmer of hope that they will soon be reunited with their abducted children. Most of those parents go to bed again that night broken- hearted. Sadly those left-behind parents all too often believe that they have nowhere to turn and that is truly a tragedy. Today, we are sending a message to our State Department that the return of our children is a national priority. Today, we are saying to those nations who routinely ignore their obligations under the Hague convention: send our children home. Mr. Speaker, those long suffering left-behind parents need to know that their government is behind them, and that their government will keep fighting for them until the last stolen American child comes safely home. Let us have a resounding show of support for this resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time on this side of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 501) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Nation's law enforcement officers.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration, House Resolution 501.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, it is often easy to overlook the courageous service of a group of men and women who protect us very close to home here in the United States. Over 700,000 law enforcement officers, serving at every level of government and in communities of every size, stand guard over our lives and our property every single day. These officers patrol our streets, they pursue those who threaten our security, they are just a phone call away. Today, with the consideration of this resolution, we honor the dedication and devotion of America's law enforcement community. And, in particular, we honor the sacrifice of a specific heroic group of law enforcement officers. We honor those who have given their lives in service to the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, mere words cannot fully express the significance of this sacrifice. How do we adequately express our appreciation for those who are willing to die to protect us and our families? Police officers enjoy life just as much as the rest of us. They long to see their children grow up and be successful and to someday hold their grandchildren, just like all of us do. And yet they are willing to risk all of this, all of their hopes and all of their dreams, for us, to ensure the safety and well-being of our communities. It is far too easy for us to take for granted their devotion to duty. It is for this reason that we bring H. Res. 501 to the floor today. It is to honor the 134 peace officers who lost their lives in the performance of their duties just last year. It is also to commemorate the more than 15,000 officers who have made the supreme sacrifice over the course of our Nation's history. The names of these heroes are now enshrined on the Law Enforcement Memorial Wall only a few blocks from this very House Chamber. That wall and this simple resolution are among the many ways that we can encourage all Americans to remember, to never forget the extraordinary service of these extraordinary public servants. This week, Mr. Speaker, we celebrate Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week. Earlier today, a ceremony was held on the West Lawn of the Capitol in memory of peace officers killed in the line of duty in 1999. This resolution calls on the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to honor and recognize slain peace officers. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for introducing this resolution and taking the lead in ensuring that this House expresses its profound appreciation for the commitment and sacrifice of America's law enforcement officers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), and I want to thank him for his leadership in this very important area.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment to the Delahunt amendment. The intent of the amendment is to make the moratorium permanent. For parliamentary reasons, it was necessary to pick a date specific, a certain amount of time. In this case, we chose 99 years, which, in essence, effectively makes the moratorium permanent. Mr. Chairman, back in 1998, I worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to introduce and push legislation that would place a moratorium on Internet taxation. The effort resulted in the passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which placed a 3-year moratorium on three particular types of Internet taxation: taxes on access charges, multiple taxes, and discriminatory taxes. At that time, we were warned of the dire consequences for State and local governments if such a moratorium were enacted. However, contrary to these concerns, the moratorium has proved to be quite successful. Since enactment of the Internet Freedom Act, millions of Americans have gained access to the Internet, and electronic commerce has grown exponentially. The Internet economy has created millions of new jobs, and new economic opportunities for Internet businesses as well as more traditional companies. As a result of this rapid expansion, most State and local governments are experiencing massive increases in tax revenues and record budget surpluses. There has been a lot of talk in this Chamber about bridging the so-called digital divide and providing all Americans with access to the Internet. According to a Department of Commerce report released last July, only 12 percent of those households with combined incomes from $20,000 to $25,000 have Internet access, compared to 60 percent of those households earning $75,000 or more. Raising taxes and increasing prices on consumers will only make that situation worse. The most reliable way to ensure that Internet access is available to all is to help keep prices and costs low. By extending the moratorium and permanently banning Internet access taxes, we can lower future costs and ensure that Internet access remains affordable for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, thriving new industries have always been prime targets for new and discriminatory taxation in this country. For example, our constituents are still paying for the Spanish-American War courtesy of an excise tax on telephone use enacted all the way back in 1898 and still on the books. If we do not act affirmatively to protect the Internet, it will soon be subject to these same types of bogus charges which can hinder its growth, raise prices, and hurt consumers. By merely extending the current moratorium rather than making it permanent, Congress is leaving the flood gates open for a tidal wave of future taxation, which could cripple this vital technology. It is time to slam those gates shut, lock them tightly, and throw away the key. If we do not enact a permanent moratorium and, instead, continue to pass temporary extensions, no one, not State and local government entities, not the Internet business community, and not the consumers, will know what the future may bring. By enacting a permanent ban ,we can end this uncertainty and allow the Internet to flourish, free from the threat of future taxation. Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to pass this proposal today. The Internet is a global network, and subjecting it to a myriad of State and local access taxes will cripple its development and prevent some families from gaining access to this wonderful tool. I urge my colleagues to protect our constituents' access to this thriving technology and vote to make this moratorium permanent.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Not at this point in time. The Committee on Rules set this rule. I am not on the Committee on Rules, I do not know how many folks sitting here are. But this is the rule we are dealing with. If we could move on and have the Members who would like to speak on this amendment, hopefully we will be able to have time to get to other amendments. That is, I think, the goal of all of us.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I object. There are a number of speakers, I believe, who are interested in speaking on this amendment.

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

Mr. CHABOT. There are a number of speakers over here that have indicated they want to have sufficient time to address this particular amendment. I do not think it will take a tremendous amount of time, and I would hope that we will have an opportunity to get to the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) or any other amendments that might be offered.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today is Tax Freedom Day. Today is the day that working Americans for the first time this year can stop working for the government and begin working for themselves and for their own families. May 3, 5 months into the year, 124 days working for the government. Incredible. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to those working American families to trim the size of big government and trim the size of their tax bills. Rather than picking up the tab for a host of government programs that simply refuse to die because the President and the Congress refuse to kill them, taxpayers should be able to spend their hard-earned money on their own needs. Rather than supporting billion- dollar corporate welfare programs, taxpayers should be allowed to provide for the welfare of their own families. Mr. Speaker, we can help. We can move Tax Freedom Day to an earlier slot on the calendar by cutting big government down to size and providing American people with the healthy tax cut that they richly deserve. And next year, we can celebrate Tax Freedom Day a little earlier.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, our current tax code is unfair. It taxes savings. It taxes marriage. It even taxes death. It is virtually incomprehensible, even to tax lawyers and to accountants. In fact it is even four times the length of the Bible. This week we have an opportunity to take a major step towards reforming our tax system. The House will consider H.R. 1041, legislation to sunset the Tax Code. This legislation will encourage Congress to create a simpler and fairer and more reasonable tax system for Americans. It gives us a deadline to do it. Once this bill becomes law, the current Tax Code would sunset on December 31, 2004, and Congress must then implement a new Tax Code or reauthorize the current one we have by July 4, 2005. Our tax laws are complicated, unfair, and unreasonable. Let us work together to sunset our abominable Tax Code and replace it with something simpler and fairer and flatter.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in the age before Roe v. Wade. In those days, the idea of killing a baby in the womb because it was inconvenient would not even occur to the average individual. Elective abortion on demand, taxpayer funded abortions, no way. Certainly never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that one day I would be standing on the floor of the United States House of Representatives arguing against a practice in which a defenseless little baby, partially delivered, and moments before taking its first breath outside the womb, would be stabbed in the skull by an abortionist who would then extract the baby's brains, causing the skull to collapse, killing the powerless child. Sadly, that is how far we have come in the last three decades, or should I say that is how far we have fallen. The American Medical Association says about partial-birth abortion, it is ``not good medicine'' and ``it is not medically indicated in any situation.'' We often hear from Members of this body talking about helping the little guy, looking out for the little guy. Well, I would say to my colleagues on the left, this is their chance to look out for truly the little guy and the, oh, so little girls, the helpless, the defenseless, the powerless, the most vulnerable of all of us. This is their chance to finally put a stop to such senseless assaults on those who cannot defend themselves. Mr. Speaker, those of us who support this legislation hold little hope that our President will see the light. He has made his pact with the extremists in the abortion industry and their vocal accomplices. But we cannot ever concede this issue. We can never surrender. Let us have a powerful show of support for this legislation. Let us send a passionate message to the President that there is no place in a civilized society for the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Let us cast an overwhelming vote in favor of innocent human life.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, if there were an award for the biggest government screw up of the year, the Census Bureau would win the award going away. The Census Bureau, which has been planning the 2000 census for 10 years, now sent out 120 million pre-notification cards with the wrong address. That is right, Mr. Speaker, the wrong address. Most of us learned to address a letter by the time we left the third grade. I guess the folks at the Census Bureau were absent that day. This from the folks who want to use smoke and mirrors to adjust the final results of the census. The American people know better, Mr. Speaker. The Census Bureau certainly has some explaining to do. If the Bureau cannot be trusted to address mail properly, how can we trust them with their risky statistical scheme.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Congress must follow the lead of 32 States, including my home State of Ohio, and pass the ``Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment.'' This amendment will empower crime victims by allowing them to confront their assailants in a courtroom and at sentencing and parole hearings. It will also protect victims by requiring that they be notified about the release or escape of the perpetrator from custody. Finally, the amendment will restore victims by guaranteeing them the right to seek restitution from their attackers. For far too long, victims of crime in this country have had to stand on the courthouse steps with meaningful justice just beyond their reach: not allowed to view proceedings in person sometimes, not permitted to speak out on behalf of a murdered loved one, not even notified when a violent abuser is turned loose. Crime victims deserve to be treated better. They deserve to be treated with dignity in our criminal justice system. With the adoption of this amendment, we will finally fortify an important truth, that victims must have their own inalienable rights under our Constitution.