Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is simple. Hard-working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the advertising costs of America's private corporations, yet this is exactly what the Market Access Program does. Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted well over $1 billion from the pockets of American taxpayers and handed it to multimillion dollar corporations to subsidize their marketing programs in foreign countries. In other words, the U.S. taxpayer is helping successful private companies and trade associations advertise their wares in foreign countries. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people would agree that their money could be better spent on deficit reduction for education. Rather than subsidize private businesses and corporations, that money could much better be spent on deficit reduction or on education or on saving Social Security, on the environment, or on tax cuts. In the past, we have witnessed MAP supporters present some good- sounding arguments for preserving what is in my view a corporate welfare scheme. The only problem is that when we cut through the pro- MAP propaganda, there is no credible evidence to back up their claims. Let me give my colleagues an example. MAP supporters have argued that this so-called business government partnership creates jobs. But I think, Mr. Chairman, that the American people know that the only jobs usually created by big government spending programs are for big government bureaucracies. This view of the MAP program is backed by the General Accounting Office. GAO studies indicated that this program has no discernible effect on U.S. agricultural exports. So if the program cannot increase U.S. exports, how can it possibly create more private-sector jobs? For years, supporters of MAP have lauded the economic benefits created by the program. However, in April 1999, a GAO report, requested by myself and Senator Schumer and a bipartisan group of House Members, concluded that the economic benefits of this program are uncertain at best. According to that report, it seems that the Foreign Agricultural Service, the bureaucracy which administers this corporate welfare program, has used certain assumptions that the OMB has determined to be inadequate for economic benefit analysis. For example, the Foreign Agricultural Service assumes that there are no opportunity costs for promoting one product over another. But even if my colleagues do believe these supposed benefits, they have all the more reason to support this amendment. These numbers, if accurate, prove that, given these positive returns on an investment overseas, MAP-supported corporations and trade associations ought to be spending their own money and not the money of the taxpayers of this Nation. My opposition to MAP is not based solely on the false premises of its supporters. I am offering this amendment today because we simply do not need this wasteful program. Let us be honest. Most American businesses do not benefit and do not try to take advantage of government handouts like this MAP program. In the case of MAP, as in most corporate welfare programs, beneficiaries consist primarily of politically well-connected corporations and trade associations. Most, if not all of these organizations, would advertise their products overseas, even without MAP funds. They probably would work much harder to ensure that the money is well spent. Let me give just one example of the kind of waste and mismanagement that this program breeds. We all remember a few years ago when the California Raisin Board sponsored the ``I heard it through the grapevine'' raisin commercial. Based on the success of that commercial in the U.S., MAP decided that it would be a good idea to use that commercial to attempt to boost raisin sales in Japan and put $3 million into the project. Not surprisingly, however, the ads played in English, leaving many Japanese confused, unaware that the dancing characters were raisins. Most thought they were potatoes or chocolate. In addition, many Japanese children were afraid of the wrinkled, misshapen figures. This, of course, is the kind of wasteful spending that inevitably occurs when we give someone the ability to spend other people's money. Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars on special interest spending programs that unfairly take money from hard-working families to help profitable private companies pad their bottom line. MAP is a massive corporate welfare program that we should eliminate today. Finally, in MAP, MAP's proponents have argued that due to recent reforms, big corporations no longer receive MAP funds. It is true that in June 1998, in order to correct some of the more egregious abuses of the MAP, Market Access Program, the Foreign Agricultural Service revised its regulations to limit a company to 5 years of assistance in a particular country. After this 5-year period had expired, companies were to be graduated from the country's market. Translation: These billion-dollar corporations were no longer to receive tax dollars to fund their product promotions. So I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote to get rid of this very wasteful program.

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

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

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, every once in a while in politics the truth slips out. Sometimes the so-called political pros call it a gaffe. Well, we have a perfect example of a gaffe by the leader of the Democratic Party in this body in the House, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). The gentleman spoke to a group the other day and he said, and I quote, ``You've got to have a combination of taking it out of the defense budget and raising revenue. We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or even raising taxes to do it.'' Well, maybe the other side can argue about how they want to raise taxes, but Republicans in this House are arguing about how to cut taxes, not raise them. The American people are overtaxed, not undertaxed. Let us get together and cut taxes across the board on all Americans, and let us get rid of this horrible tax, the death tax, where the Federal Government can take up to 55 percent of what Americans earn during the course of their lives, even though they have been taxed for that over and over again over the course of their lives. Let us cut taxes, not talk about raising them.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Chinese espionage scandal, I have heard the other side say over and over again; let us not overreact; let us not politicize this; there is plenty of blame to go around; it is Ronald Reagan's fault, and, of course, the ``everybody does it'' defense that we hear every single time wrongdoing by this administration is discovered. It is almost as though they have no interest in the real problem, our national security. This administration's real attention, its real interest, was raising campaign cash, avoiding blame, avoiding embarrassment, getting reelected. Change the subject, talk about guns, cigarettes, school uniforms. Let us do it for the children. If the Clinton administration had really wanted to do something to make the children of this Nation safer, they would have protected them from potential nuclear annihilation some day. That is what they should have been doing. Instead, they were raising campaign cash.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Rosenbergs were executed for giving the former Soviet Union secret information which allowed them to advance their atomic weapons program by 5 years. The Chinese theft of nuclear weapons technology which has recently occurred under this administration has advanced the threat to our Nation by a generation. This administration loves to say we have to do this, we have to do that for the children. Think of how much American children's lives have been endangered by this administration because of its lax security measures. Campaign contributions from the head of the Chinese military intelligence to the Clinton administration; and this administration's response, we need campaign finance reform. They do not even follow the laws in the books that we have now. Now the Clinton administration screams for gun control. Yet, they invite Chinese arms dealers to coffees at the White House, yes, for campaign donations. Unbelievable.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the same Federal government that wants to see our medical records, monitor our banking transactions, register our private post office box, and if the Vice President has his way, tell us where to live, now wants to tax our drive to work every day. Transportation officials in Maryland, with the apparent support of the Federal Highway Administration, are cooking up a silly idea that will allow those who can afford it to skirt rush hour traffic by paying to drive in a special HOT or high-occupancy toll lane. Those who cannot afford or do not want to pay an additional tax on a highway their tax dollars are already paying for are welcome to sit in rush hour traffic while those in the so-called Lexus lanes speed by. Mr. Speaker, the reason there is a rush hour is that people have to go to work. They have to go to work to support their families and to pay their taxes, which help to pay the salaries of transportation bureaucrats who come up with these lame-brained ideas like this one. Let us put a stop to this silliness before it is too late.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as the eyes of most Americans are fixed on events in Yugoslavia and the brave service of our military forces there, it is easy to overlook the courageous service of another group of men and women who protect us much closer to home. 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. But, in particular, we honor the sacrifice of a specific heroic group of law enforcement officers. We honor those who have given their lives in the 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 of the rest of us. They long to see their children grow up and be successful and to some day hold their grandchildren, just like all of us do. And yet they are willing to risk 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. 165 to the floor today. It is to honor the 158 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 away 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 Saturday, Mr. Speaker, we will celebrate Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Day. The main event will be a ceremony in memory of peace officers killed in the line of duty in 1998 held on the West Lawn of the Capitol. 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 with ceremonies similar to Saturday's event. I am pleased that this Congress has the honor of hosting the annual memorial service. Last night, in my hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio, I had the privilege of speaking at our local police memorial service. Over the last year, our community has suffered the tragic loss of three officers: Cincinnati Officer Daniel Pope and Specialist Ronald Jeter, and Officer Michael Partin from neighboring Covington, Kentucky, just across the river. Now today we honor officers from throughout the country who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 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 move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 165) acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, here is a subject we will never hear the other side talk about. That is Tax Freedom Day. Tax Freedom Day is the day where the taxpayer is finally free of the taxman and is finally working for himself or working for herself. As of yesterday, the average taxpayer was still working to pay his or her taxes, Federal, State and local. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Tax Freedom Day was April 29, according to this chart. The next year, it was April 30; and it was May 2 the year after that. Last year, it was May 10; and this year it is May 11. As we can see from this chart, we have come a long way from 1981 when it was May 4, before the Reagan tax cuts pushed the day back about a week. This is not progress, in my book. American taxpayers have less and less freedom, and government has more and more power over our lives. Tax Freedom Day, it is a concept that puts in stark terms just how much of our income we have to send to the government before we are free at last. Let us finally cut taxes in this country.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Congress faces the prospect of multitrillion dollar surpluses, budget surpluses, over the next 15 years. That is good news. As one might expect, the response to this good news has been sharply divided. Liberals, and President Clinton, have come forward with new Washington spending programs. Republicans, on the other hand, have called for saving Social Security, cutting taxes and paying down the national debt. It is almost the law of nature that money left in Washington will be spent. Therefore, I think we should pass a tax cut as soon as possible, before the big spenders here in Washington get their hands on it. Let us hope that Congress and the President get it right. Work together and save Social Security, cut taxes and pay down the national debt. It is very, very important for America's future to do that.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, despite some of the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, H.R. 833 is a pro-consumer piece of legislation. That is, pro- responsible consumer. H.R. 833 protects individuals and businesses from having to pick up the tab for irresponsible debtors, some of whom are capable of paying off a significant portion of their debts. This legislation establishes a clear causal link between a debtor's ability to pay and the availability of Chapter 7 bankruptcy remedies. In other words, it makes those who can afford to pay their debts pay. There are, of course, some people who truly have a legitimate need to declare bankruptcy. At times, hardworking people come up against extraordinary circumstances. Family illness, disability, or the loss of spouse may necessitate the need to seek relief. H.R. 833 protects these individuals. Too frequently, however, people who have the financial ability or earnings potential to repay their debts are seeking an easy way out. While this may prove convenient for the debtor, it is not fair to their friends and neighbors who are stuck with their bills. The average American family pays $550 per year in a bad debt tax in the form of higher prices and increased interest rates to cover the economic cost associated with excessive bankruptcy filings. I am so concerned about the shifting of financial obligations from neighbor to neighbor that I introduced language at the subcommittee level that will relieve at least some of the burden for the 42 million Americans who live in our Nation's cooperatives and condominiums and homeowner associations. With all too much regularity, bankrupt individuals have been abandoning their homes to avoid paying their share of community assessments. Vacant or occupied, the unit continues to receive a wide spectrum of benefits that enhance the inherent value of the property while neighbors are left to pick up the tab through an increase in association fees. Nationally, consumer bankruptcies reached a record 1.4 million filings in 1997 and are projected to be even higher this year. What makes these numbers significant and particularly alarming is the fact that this trend began in 1994, during a time of solid economic growth, low inflation and low unemployment. The primary culprit for this dramatic increase is a system that allows consumers to evade personal responsibility for their debts too easily. People who make above the national median income and can afford to pay off a significant portion of their debt should not be allowed to file under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This bill puts those individuals where they belong, in Chapter 13, where they will be given a generous 5 years to establish a fair repayment plan and get their financial house in order. Opponents of H.R. 833 are offering a substitute today that will do little or nothing to curb the abuses prevalent in our current system. For instance, the substitute would strike from the bill key provisions that prevent debtors from loading up on credit card debt just before declaring bankruptcy and obtaining a complete discharge of that debt upon filing. These opponents actually think that individuals should not be held responsible for taking huge cash advances and purchasing luxury goods just prior to filing bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this practice has become far too common as more and more individuals have begun using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool. Madam Speaker, I fully support H.R. 833 and urge my colleagues to do the same and vote ``yes'' for fair and balanced bankruptcy reform.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have believed from the outset that our involvement in this European conflict is wrong. It has become painfully apparent that the Clinton administration committed American air power without a clearly-defined mission and without a credible exit strategy. Make no mistake about it. Slobodan Milosevic is a war criminal. His treatment of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo has been deplorable, and his prosecution as a international war criminal could not come fast enough. But I do not believe that the commitment of American military forces to a potentially long, expensive and perhaps tragic effort can be the proper means to achieve that end. Mr. Speaker, our military involvement in the Balkans is unwise. This administration's miscues have led to a disjointed strategy of gradual escalation that puts the lives of American men and women at risk. Let us work for peace. Let us help the Kosovar refugees with humanitarian aid. But let us take our service men and women out of harm's way.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, now the big government bureaucrats in the Clinton administration have decided they do care about the privacy rights of the American people after all. Just 14 days before 9,000 home health care providers are to begin submitting the personal medical information of millions of Americans to the Federal Government, we learn in the Washington Post that the Health Care Financing Administration has decided to review the program's privacy implications, something which should have been considered long before this misguided regulation ever saw the light of day. Is this newfound concern for privacy going to prevent the administration from prying into the lives of innocent Americans and creating a Federal database of their medical information? Sadly, the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is no. The administration is simply delaying the ultimate submission of the data to the Federal Government. The home health care providers are still expected to conduct the 19- page assessment of each page, including private questions concerning the patient's sense of failure or socially inappropriate behavior. Let us put an end to this outrageous conduct.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution, H. Res. 118.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill reaffirms the principles of the program of action of the International Conference on Population and Development with respect to the sovereign rights of countries and the right of voluntary and informed consent in family planning programs. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), for authoring this sense of the Congress resolution to affirm the voluntary family planning language that was adopted during House consideration of the fiscal year 1999 foreign operations appropriations legislation and later included as part of the Omnibus Appropriation Act of 1998. As my colleagues know, the United Nations General Assembly will convene a special session from June 30 to July 2 of this year in order to review and appraise the implementation of the program of action of the International Conference on Population and Development. This resolution sends a message to that conference that it is the belief of the United States Congress that all family planning programs should be completely voluntary, avoid numerical targets and provide recipients complete information on methods and generally respect individual values and beliefs as well as national laws and development priorities. Mr. Speaker, again I want to compliment my colleague from Kansas for offering this legislation. It is a timely resolution, it is well drafted, and it deserves the support of this House. I urge adoption of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we would urge adoption of the resolution. I think it is a very good resolution. I want to again thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for proposing it.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).