Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1794. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my friend from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in sponsoring this legislation, and I am hopeful that we will garner the overwhelming support of the House. As my colleague has stated, H.R. 1724 requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress on the efforts of the State Department to fulfill the commitments made in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review to more actively support Taiwan's participation in international organizations, in particular the World Health Organization. The people of Taiwan have a great deal to offer the international community. It is terribly unfortunate that even though Taiwan's achievements in the medical field are certainly substantial and it has expressed a repeated willingness to assist both financially and technically in World Health Organization activities, it has not been allowed to do so. Passage of H.R. 1794 will, hopefully, prompt our Government to promote that effort. It is simply a travesty that during times of crisis, such as the 1998 entovirus outbreak in Taiwan, the World Health Organization has been unable to help. That virus killed 70 Taiwanese children and infected more than a thousand. Only 2 weeks ago, the tragic earthquake in Taiwan that claimed more than 2,000 lives occurred. Sadly, we learned in published reports that the Communist Government of the People's Republic of China, whose belligerent insistence that Taiwan be denied a role in international organizations, demanded that any aid for Taiwan provided by the United Nations and the Red Cross receive prior approval from the dictators in Beijing. Mr. Speaker, in times of national emergency, Taiwan is deserving of assistance from the international community. The absurd policy denying or delaying that assistance must be changed. I want to again thank and commend my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and also the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for their work on this very important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. What we are talking about here should not be controversial. This legislation is long overdue, a Federal law that simply holds violent criminals liable for conduct that injures or kills an unborn child. I would like to cite one particularly disturbing example of a homicide of an unborn child that occurred in my hometown of Cincinnati back in 1997. On the day before Thanksgiving, 1997, in a classic case of road rage, a woman forced the car of Rene Andrews that she was driving off the road and into a parked truck. Mrs. Andrews was seriously injured, and tragically the baby she was carrying died as a result of that accident. Mrs. Andrews has never recovered fully from the crash. The simple explanation offered by the perpetrator of this heinous act was that Mrs. Andrews had allegedly cut off the woman in traffic. Just 2 months earlier, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base an airman assaulted his wife who was 8 months pregnant with her daughter, Jasmine. He covered his fist with a tee shirt and beat her in the face and abdomen. As a result of this beating, the woman's uterus ruptured and expelled Jasmine into her abdominal cavity. Baby Jasmine died before taking her first breath outside the womb. Both of these cases are tragic, Mr. Chairman, but they have another important factor in common. Both deaths were successfully prosecuted under Ohio's unborn victims law. The Cincinnati woman was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide, and the man was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of his child. I am proud that my home State of Ohio recognizes the aggravated death of an unborn child as a crime separate and apart from the one committed against the mother. Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to do the same, and I want to thank very much personally all those who have brought this to the attention of Congress, and I would urge passage of this very important legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have this right. As a result of balancing the Federal budget for the first time in a generation, the Republican Congress has created a record-breaking budget surplus. President Clinton, who opposed spending restraints every step of the way, now takes credit for that surplus. At the same time, and apparently with a straight face, the President calls for billions and billions of dollars in new spending programs, threatens to veto legislation because it does not spend enough, and calls for tax increases on the American people to pay for yet more Washington spending. Joined by his liberal allies in the Congress, he intends to raid the Social Security trust fund yet once again. Mr. Speaker, we have been entrusted by the American people to protect their Social Security program. Let us not allow President Clinton and his big spending friends to betray that trust. Let us hold the line on runaway spending. Let us protect the taxpayers. Let us ensure the solvency of our Social Security system. Stop the raid, Mr. President. Stop the raid.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues a very disturbing article in this morning's Washington Post. American taxpayers have invested approximately $75 million to build and train a new national police force in Haiti, a department that would replace the feared security forces from previous military dictatorships. Sadly, the new national police force appears to be just a new version of the old one. The Post reports that in a 3-month period earlier this year, 50 killings attributed to the police occurred, and police involvement in drug trafficking has also been charged. Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show that when our government gets involved in virtually every predicament that occurs around the world, we tend to lose control of where our tax dollars are going. $75 million, and the result from all that money? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Just the latest in this administration's failed Haiti policy.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it seems that rarely does a day go by when we do not learn of more allegations of mismanagement, stonewalling, and cover-ups at the Department of Justice. Yesterday, during the testimony before the Senate committee, FBI agents assigned to investigate the Clinton White House's involvement in the widespread campaign financial scandal said that Justice Department officials blocked their efforts to carry out the investigation. At one point during the investigation, the special agent in charge of the Little Rock FBI office personally wrote to FBI Director Louis Freeh to express his concern about Justice's role in hampering the investigation, maintaining that the team leading the investigation, at best, simply was not up to the task. Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department continues to lose confidence of the law enforcement community, confidence of the Congress, and confidence of the American people. It is time to restore that confidence. It is time to clean House at the Justice Department. It is time for Attorney General Janet Reno to step down.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, from time to time, we hear some pretty wacky ideas in Washington, none wackier than a recent suggestion, apparently emanating from the other body that the Congress adopt a 13-month fiscal year so as to circumvent the budget caps we agreed to back in 1998 which, as I recall, was a standard 12-month year. What will we call the newly created 13th month? Taxember? Spenduary? And what will our big government friends think of next in their ongoing fiscal assault on hard-working, taxpaying families. An 8-day week? A 30-hour day? With more time for everybody to work for the tax man? I have a really unique suggestion. Let us keep our promises, stand by the commitment we made to the American people. Let us honor those spending caps that the Congress and the President agreed to only about a year ago. Let us give the American people something they are not accustomed to, a Congress and a President who keep their word. I guess that is something you see only once in a blue moon, or, as they say, only in a 13-month year.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, there now appears to be bipartisan support for perhaps the most important defense position that the Republican party has had for the last 10 years. America is vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack. If North Korea or Communist China or Iraq were to fire a missile at the United States, we would have no ability right now to shoot it down. It is going to land and a lot of people are going to die. We do not have a national missile defense system now, and the reason is because of the existence of a treaty with a country that no longer exists. The ABM treaty, signed with the Soviet Union, a country that began violating the treaty even before the ink on the paper is dry, is standing in the way of a rational policy to protect America from a missile attack. Our current policy of relying on the ABM treaty to keep America safe from the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins of the world is dangerous, foolish, and naive. Does anyone really think that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein is going to refrain from developing these types of weapons because we have a treaty with the Soviet Union? It is time to get to work and at long last have a policy to protect this country from missile attack.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, Congressional Budget Office projects approximately $3 trillion in budget surpluses over the next 10 years. The Republican plan would take $2 trillion of that money and put it in the Social Security and Medicare lockbox. That means that $2 trillion goes towards retirement security for those two important programs. It also reduces the debt by $2 trillion. The remaining $1 trillion would be returned to the taxpayers, all taxpayers. Now my liberal friends in the House here keep saying it is tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich. It is just not true. It is for all Americans. The details? For example: The marriage penalty. Right now, a married couple in this country pays higher taxes than a couple who is living together and not married. That is just not right. So it phases out the marriage penalty. It also eliminates over time the death tax or the inheritance tax. Right now the Federal Government can take up to 55 percent of what a person has earned during the course of their life when they die. It means the family farm gets sold, small businesses get sold, people lose their jobs. So let us save those important programs and cut taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, when I hear some of my liberal friends on the other side of the aisle, not the gentleman who just spoke, I might add, talk about targeted tax cuts, I know exactly what they mean. It means you will not be getting one. Republicans, I should add, also are putting forth a targeted tax cut, but there is a very big difference. If you are a taxpayer, you get one. That is right, our targeted tax cuts target all taxpayers, a concept that really sticks in the craw of many of my liberal friends on the other side of the aisle. Many politicians in Washington have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the budget surplus, a tax overpayment, really, does not belong to them. That money, every penny of it, belongs to the taxpayers. Washington is taking more than it needs out of the pockets of those who work all over this country and pay their taxes. The bottom line is the American people are overtaxed, and the real issue is, who should decide how the money gets spent: The bureaucrats up here in Washington, or the taxpayers all over this country. I will cast my lot with the people of this Nation. Let us cut the taxes on the American people, and let us do it now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I heard a criticism the other day of the way that Republicans talk about our budget proposal that I think has some merit. The Republican budget proposal contains three major elements: Saving Social Security and Medicare, paying down the national debt, and tax relief. However, this critic pointed out that Republicans are talking almost exclusively about tax cuts and not emphasizing that we are also saving Social Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt. I think that criticism is valid, but I think I know why that is the case, too. Republicans are just so excited about the tax cuts that some of them forget to talk about the other vital elements of the budget proposal. Let us face it, Republicans were put on this earth to cut taxes. We are the tax-cutting party, because we believe that people should have more power and control over their own lives and that the government should have less. Let us be clear once and for all. The Republican budget proposal stands for saving Social Security and Medicare, paying down the national debt and, yes, also cutting the American people's taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, hold on to our floppy disks. The Clinton administration, everybody's favorite Big Brother, may soon be following our computers' every move. According to the New York Times, administration officials are contemplating the creation of an extensive computer monitoring system overseen by the FBI and the GSA that will have the capability of collecting data from computer networks all across this country. This news should send a chill up the spine of anybody who has followed this administration's actions on privacy issues. Remember, these are the folks who want each and every American to have a special identification number so that their medical records could be tracked by the Federal Government. These are the folks who wanted to collect a host of personal information about the millions of Americans who receive in-home care from Medicare. These are the folks who wanted to give the FBI the authority to wire tap one out of every 100 phones in this country. So when they start talking about computer security, be wary. Let us keep their hands off our e-mail.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are proposing a tax cut. In fact, we passed it in the House of Representatives here just last week. Democrats criticized it, and now they say they want to target a tax cut. But there is a big difference. Republicans are targeting all taxpayers. If they pay taxes, they get a tax cut. To liberal Democrats that is not fair. To their way of thinking only if the government decides whether they are worthy of some social engineering should they get a tax cut. And if they are carrying most of the tax burden, they are the last persons the liberal Democrats here in the House want to give a tax cut to. For most taxpayers, when a liberal wants to give a targeted tax cut, well, this is a euphemism for ``you are not getting one.'' Let me say again what the Republican approach to tax cuts is, if one is a taxpayer, one gets to keep some of one's hard-earned money. It is not the Government's money. It belongs to the people who had labored and worked hard to earn it in the first place Yes, it is a question of fairness and it sends an important signal to the American people that hard work will be rewarded.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment this morning to note the tragic and untimely passing last week of a good friend and a good man, John Romano, of Cincinnati, Ohio, a victim of Hodgkins Disease at the young age of 41 years. John was a small businessman, a true entrepreneur. He was active in his community, giving much of his time. He served as a member of the North College Hill city council for over 10 years. John was instrumental in my being in Congress here today, or even speaking this morning, and he was an important part of the career of the Secretary of State of Ohio, Ken Blackwell. But most importantly, John was a family man who will be sadly missed by his wife, Christine, and his parents and brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews. To Christine and the Romano family, our prayers are with you. You have lost a good man, and I have lost a good friend. And our community has lost a leader. God bless you, John. We all know you are in a better place.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This bipartisan legislation is intended to fundamentally shift U.S. trade and investment policy toward sub-Saharan Africa, establishing as U.S. policy the creation of a transition path from development assistance to economic self-reliance for those countries in Africa truly committed to economic and political reform, market incentives, and private sector growth. The African Growth and Opportunity Act helps not only those Nations in sub-Saharan Africa who have sought to improve their economies by adopting political and market reforms, it helps the United States, which will greatly benefit from expanded trade. Tearing down trade barriers and creating new markets for American products in Africa translates into more American jobs and opportunities right here at home. As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa and an original cosponsor of this legislation, I want to commend all those who have worked so hard to bring the African Growth and Opportunity Act to the floor today. It is a well-crafted bill that deserves our overwhelming support. I urge an aye vote on this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of Americans who believe that there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Well, there certainly is here in the U.S. House of Representatives. For example, let us consider taxes. The Democrats, under President Clinton, passed the largest increase in U.S. history back in 1993. The liberals have not stopped praising that tax increase ever since. The liberals are actually happy to raise taxes because that means more revenues for big government and more money to spend on their special interests. Republicans believe that the government is too big and that Washington politicians have too much power. Republicans passed tax cuts last time and it is our goal to pass additional tax cuts this year. Let us get rid of the unfair marriage penalty, for example. Let us get rid of the death tax. Let us reduce taxes on all Americans. The difference between Democrats and Republicans here in the House: The Democrats believe that the bureaucrats here in Washington know best how to spend taxpayers' money. Republicans think that the American people are smart enough to know how to spend their own money.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have had to get used to hearing the President take credit for what Republicans have achieved many times despite what the President himself desired. Take welfare reform, for example. Republicans forced the President to sign welfare reform in 1996, something that he had refused to pass when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. He signed welfare reform only after vetoing it twice and only then in an election year, with promises to undo it as soon as he got the chance. And then he took credit for it. Now, the President is taking credit for the first budget surplus since the Mets won the pennant back in 1996 despite the fact that it was the Republicans who forced him to scrap his initial budget plans, which had huge deficits as far as the eye could see. Ronald Reagan once said that you can accomplish a great deal if you do not worry about who takes credit for it. So let us save Social Security, save Medicare, pay down the national debt, and give the American people substantial tax relief even if the President takes credit for it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot of speeches this week, countless speeches, in fact, about taxes. We will hear that the debate over taxes is about fairness, about special interests, about the struggles of the middle class, about the American dream, about compassion, and about justice. Yes, this debate is about all of those things, but principally the debate about taxes is about freedom. It is not a difficult concept. It is not an idea that requires advanced degrees or lengthy training. It is simply this, that if we let people keep more of their own money, people will have more freedom to live their lives as they see fit, not as the government sees fit. Letting people keep more of what they earn will allow Americans to save more, build a better future for themselves and their families, and realize their dreams. So this week let us have a true discussion. Let us talk about finally cutting taxes in this country.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the old expression, ``You snooze, you lose.'' An article in yesterday's Washington Times brings that old expression to mind. It was entitled, EU, that is European Union, Latin Trade Zone Doesn't Include U.S. It seems that while our government has dawdled, European governments have worked hard to cultivate trade relationships in our own backyard. Latin American countries and the European Union worked toward lowering trade barriers, and our government stands idly by. Trade means jobs. Trade means economic growth. Trade means a higher standard of living for the American people. Let us not continue to sit back and watch while Europe and Latin America reap the benefits of an aggressive trade policy. Let us work with our trading partners to tear down barriers and open up markets for American products around the world. Mr. Speaker, we can ill afford to be pushed out of the international trade markets. Let us get back in the game.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton ran an ad in his first presidential campaign back in 1992 in which he said he wanted to end welfare as we know it. Then what happened? Well, he had a Democrat- controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his term, and what did they do on welfare reform? Nothing. The American people decided it was time for a change in 1994, just 2 years later, and elected a Republican majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. The Republican Congress passed welfare reform; the President vetoed it. And then we passed it again, and then he vetoed it a second time. We finally passed it a third time shortly before the election, and the President finally signed it into law, and then he took credit for it. The liberals had ranted and raved that welfare reform, because it passed, we would see people starving in the streets. Well, just about everybody now agrees that the welfare reform has been one of the greatest success stories in years. Millions of people who were stuck, who were trapped on welfare are now working and supporting themselves and their own children instead of relying on their fellow taxpayers to support them. Mr. Speaker, it took a Republican Congress to get the job done.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are arguing among themselves about which taxes they want to raise, about how to come up with additional revenue. Anyone who has any doubt about the truth of this statement need merely consult with statements made by the President, the House minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and the minority leader in the other body, Tom Daschle. The President said this past January, while in Buffalo, New York, that he was opposed to giving the surplus back to the American taxpayers who produced it because, ``You might not spend it right.'' The President thinks that the government knows better how to spend our money than the people who earned it. The House minority leader stated his vision of expanding the Federal education bureaucracy by cutting defense and raising taxes. In fact, he said he would be proud to do it. And now we have the minority leader in the other body who just this past weekend said that tax increases were on the table. Maybe on the Democrats' table, but they are not on the Republicans' table. In fact, we are debating which taxes to cut. Let us reduce the taxes on the people of this Nation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for yielding me this time. As a member of the committee and on behalf of the subcommittee chairman and committee chairman, both of whom support the gentlewoman's amendment, I would say that our children are being desensitized by the increase of violence shown on television and in movies and in video games. According to the American Medical Association, by the time an average child has reached the age of 18, he or she has witnessed something like 200,000 acts of violence on television, including over 16,000 murders. Children are particularly susceptible to the influence of violent subject matter. The entertainment industry must recognize the power and influence it has over the behavior of our Nation's youth. The entertainment industry should do everything in its power to stop these portrayals of pointless acts of brutality, pointless, by eliminating gratuitous acts of violence in movies and in television and in video games. Again, on behalf of the committee, I want to very much support and thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for offering this amendment. I think it is appropriate.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for his leadership in this area. It is my hope that passage of this bill will make States take a hard look at what too often are lax parole systems that will let dangerous felons back out in society without proper safeguards. Aimee's law includes a clear statement that it is the sense of this Congress that any person who is convicted of a murder should receive the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. It also emphasizes that rapists and child molesters, criminals who are classic recidivists, be put away for life without the possibility of parole. Right now, the average time served in State prison for rape is only 5\1/2\ years and for child molestation only 4 years. These criminals are then free to do it again, and many of them do. These statistics are outrageous, and States need to get back to it and do the right thing. The family of Clara Swart, who was killed in my district in Cincinnati, also endorses this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that violence occurs throughout our Nation every day. In our classrooms, in schoolyards and playgrounds, children are all too often at the mercy of violent criminals. Nationally, we are faced with staggering statistics. The Bureau of Justice statistics report that for 1997 there were 2500 juveniles arrested for murder. That is a 90 percent increase from 1986. Our Nation's youth are now among the most likely to fall victim to violent crimes, crimes often committed, unfortunately, by their own peers. To me, these numbers indicate an epidemic of youth violence, one which must be confronted head on. We must pass stronger laws that target and punish violent juvenile offenders. Stiffer sentencing guidelines, trying for violent juveniles as adults and opening those juveniles' criminal records would be a good start. The amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) would enact some of these important provisions. For example, this amendment gives Federal prosecutors rather than judges the discretion to prosecute violent juvenile felons as adults. This provision would send a clear message to juveniles that if they commit serious crimes, they will do adult time. No more slaps on the wrist, no more short sentences followed by a quick release. So I commend the gentleman for offering this important amendment. Over 6,000 kids were expelled for bringing guns to schools during the 1996-97 school year, but only nine of them were prosecuted by the Clinton administration, by the U.S. Attorney's Office under this administration. That is a travesty. Mr. Chairman, regardless of what we accomplish here today, we must acknowledge that the juvenile violence problem in this country is not simply the product of laws or lack thereof. It is a societal one. Our children are inundated every day with negative images, violent messages, and much less than positive role models, unfortunately. Parenting has become a struggle in a country where the government taxes an inordinate amount of a family's paycheck and forces parents to spend more time at work and less time raising and supervising their own kids. We should not lose sight of the fact that most of our parents are doing a good job, and an overwhelming majority of the kids in this country are good kids who go to school to learn and to make friends and to participate in positive activities. We could help these families by cutting their taxes and helping parents spend more time with their own kids. There are a lot of things we can do, and I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the other members of the committee for a job well done and look forward to the debate on this particularly important issue to our country.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Cincinnati's Elder High School took it down to the wire last week when their great baseball team traveled to Canton, Ohio, to play for the State championship. When the smoke cleared, the Panthers had accomplished a truly extraordinary feat. They had succeeded in winning a State title in 6 consecutive decades with 11 championships overall. My brother, Ron, is a 1965 Elder graduate. I am an alumnus of arch rival LaSalle. I have to give credit where credit is due, Elder's accomplishment is phenomenal, and all of us who reside in Cincinnati's Western Hills are proud of their great achievement. Their commitment to excellence and their tradition of hard work have paid off. Once again they have made all of Cincinnati proud. To coach Mark Thompson, the Panther squad, and all their families and fans, I offer my heartfelt congratulations. From an old Lancer to all the Panthers, well done.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, President Clinton ran on a middle-class tax cut back in 1992. However, once in office, he raised taxes by a record amount; in fact, the largest tax increase in American history. The tax increase would have continued, but in 1994 the American people elected the first Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 40 years. Republicans then forced the President to accept a tax cut, a tax cut he did not want and a tax cut that was ardently opposed by his folks here in the House, the Democrats. So where does the Democratic leadership, who so desperately want to take back the House of Representatives, stand on taxes? Well, on a tour promoting his new book, A Better Place, just the other day, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democrats in the House said, and it has been quoted before but I think it bears hearing it again, ``You've got to have a combination of taking it out of the defense budget and raising revenue.'' In other words taxes. ``We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or even raising taxes to do it.'' Well, there it is: Cut defense and raise taxes. That is not my idea of a better place.