Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. If somebody feels bad about themselves, that is enough to allow the procedure.

Mr. CHABOT. That is not what your bill says. The bottom line is we are trying to save babies. You are always saying, Let us do this for the children, let us do that for the children. Let us pass this veto override to save the children. This will really save children.

Mr. CHABOT. The bottom line is the folks that are on our side here want to save kids. We want to save children.

Mr. CHABOT. While they are being born. I think we ought to join together and try to save those babies that would otherwise be born.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Big Brother is back, this time in the form of a previously unpublicized provision in the law that would require every single American to have a special identification number. That number would allow every notation in his or her medical record to be tracked. Tracked by who knows who. We have seen it before. We have seen it in the 1-800-Big Brother scheme that would require the Federal Government to sign off on each and every job hiring in this Nation. We have seen it in proposals for some sort of national ID card. Now we are witnessing an unprecedented attempt to invade the privacy of one's medical records. When most of us voted for legislation that would allow individuals to take their health care insurance with them when they changed jobs, we were not voting for a hidden provision to allow medical ID numbers. Let us face it, medical records are extremely sensitive. This Member is going to work vigorously to protect the medical privacy of every American. Let us reject this latest example of Big Brother.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that it has taken nuclear blasts in India and Pakistan to convince American leaders that it is time to put an end to our policy of mutually assured vulnerability. What I mean by that is that the United States is vulnerable to a missile attack. Many Americans are unaware of this, but if a missile were to be fired at American cities, the United States would be defenseless to stop it. Not only that, but this is the deliberate policy of the United States to remain defenseless in the face of nuclear attack. The faith of liberals in arms control, in a piece of paper, is boundless. But recent events in Pakistan and India should serve to force us to reconsider our position of vulnerability in the face of a missile attack. I hope that recent reports that Communist China has 13 nuclear missiles aimed at the United States will finally cause our leaders here in Washington to wake up. The liberals and our President are always saying we must do this for the children, we must do that for the children. Well, let us make sure that our Nation is protected from nuclear attack for the children.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is time to review a little recent history. What was the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average on November 3, 1992, the day President Clinton was elected? It was 3252. The next question, what was the Dow Jones average 2 years later, when the President had been in office 2 years, when Republicans finally took over the Congress for the first time in 4 years? 3830. So it went basically from 3200 to 3800, about a 500-point increase. What happened to the economy and the Dow Jones after the Republicans took over the House? The New York Stock Exchange has gone up over 9000 now, so it is an increase of about 5000. The liberals like to say that the economy turned around when the President was elected. That is not what happened at all. It turned around when the financial markets and the American people were confident, when we had a turnover in the House of Representatives, not when the President was elected, a 5100 point increase. So let us let credit go where credit is due. It is important. We want jobs, lower taxes. That is what this country needs, not higher taxes and not bigger government solutions.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, as a former schoolteacher myself, I would like to review the liberals' record on the issue of education in this country. In the 1960s, the liberals decided to ``dumb down'' the curriculum and now across the country academic rigor is absent from many of our public schools. The predictable result is that student achievement in many areas has plummeted. The liberals also decided that self-esteem was in and that actual knowledge was out. The liberals embraced bogus, faddish teaching methods and produced a generation of children who never learned to read. And now the liberals oppose legislation we recently passed here in Congress which would allow parents to put their own money in accounts and not to pay tax on the money in those accounts for educating their children, kindergarten through high school. They say it would somehow hurt the public schools. Baloney. Let us make it a little easier for parents, particularly middle-class parents, to provide a quality education for their children.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, and I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and many others who have worked diligently on this particular legislation. I believe that it is important that we move this legislation forward quickly and enact some type of Internet tax moratorium as soon as possible. Many of us are concerned that many of the 30,000 State and local governments who are beginning to explore the possibility of imposing significant taxes and regulations on the Internet might do so, thus severely hampering the ability of this exciting medium to expand in the future. Mr. Speaker, the Internet is a rapidly growing high-tech industry that many feel represents the future of commerce. In fact, with sales through the Internet expected to reach as high as $600 billion by the year 2002, the Internet provides American companies, consumers and taxpayers opportunities that were inconceivable just a few years ago. I would again like to emphasize that this legislation represents a compromise. There are still some issues of contention that remain. For example, I am not completely comfortable with the grandfather clause. I am concerned because if this provision remains, it will reward a handful of State tax administrators who rushed to tax the Internet access, placing the cost of Internet access out of reach of many American families. We took a step in the right direction in the Committee on the Judiciary by stripping out the grandfather exception for cities, but more work needs to be done. I hope that our colleagues in the other body act to further restrict the ability of States to re-enact these taxes. Mr. Speaker, hard-working Ohioans currently pay roughly $30 million in taxes annually for the privilege of signing on to the Internet, and I would like to see those taxes cut, not codified. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, pro-Internet, pro-taxpayer legislation, and I again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and many others.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3156, legislation providing for the awarding of a Congressional Gold Medal to South African President Nelson Mandela. I want to first take a moment to express my appreciation to my friend and distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. Houghton). I am pleased to join him as an original cosponsor. I thank him for working so hard to gather 291 cosponsors to this bill, and that is no small task. I want to commend both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and Bob Van Wicklin of his staff for their extraordinary efforts in this matter. Nelson Mandela has earned this honor. He clearly deserves it. He has spent his entire life engaging in a struggle for freedom, battling those forces who would deny democracy to millions of South Africans and standing firm against forces who would continue indefinitely institutional racism. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we bestow this honor on President Mandela as he spends his final year in public service, the culmination of a lifetime of work on behalf of his countrymen. I am pleased to support this legislation, and I hope that we pass it overwhelmingly.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for their hard work and leadership in putting this bipartisan, and it clearly is bipartisan, legislation together and moving it forth so expeditiously. This important legislation will protect consumers and businesses from creditors who are capable of paying their debts but who choose to hide behind bankruptcy protection instead of paying. In particular, this legislation would reestablish the link between one's ability to pay and one's ability to discharge debt by instituting a needs-based reform in the bankruptcy system. In a time of solid economic growth and low inflation and low unemployment, it is absolutely astounding that there were a record 1.4 million consumer bankruptcies in 1997. This represents a sevenfold increase in the number of consumer bankruptcies since 1978 when the bankruptcy laws were last reformed. These numbers are expected to increase even further this year. The primary culprit for this dramatic increase in the number of consumer bankruptcies is a system that discourages personal responsibility. Our current bankruptcy laws often allow those who can afford to pay their bills to, instead, declare bankruptcy and walk away debt free. When someone who can afford to pay their bills does not and they file bankruptcy, who pays? We all do. We all pay for it at about $400 a year per American family in higher prices; and it is, in essence, a tax on the American public, a tax on debt. Mr. Chairman, I believe that H.R. 3150 makes significant steps in ending this practice, and I hope the President will sign this legislation quickly, although one never knows, so that we can give hardworking American families protection from those who abuse the bankruptcy system and leave others holding the bill. There clearly are many instances in which people truly need bankruptcy. But let us stop the abuses. That is what this legislation does.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post, which is not exactly known as a conservative newspaper, has done the American people a great service. I do not think anybody with a straight face could say they are part of some vast alleged right wing conspiracy. Yesterday the Washington Post published a full page list of 94 witnesses who have either fled the country or taken the fifth amendment in relation to the Clinton White House scandals. There has been a pattern of nearly total noncooperation by this administration. The White House delays and stonewalls, and then complains that the investigation is taking too long. Witnesses flee the country or refuse to testify, and then the White House accuses investigators of being on a witch hunt. Attorney General Janet Reno expands the investigation, and then the White House blames Judge Starr for spending too much money. White House aides suddenly experience massive memory loss and cannot recall any relevant facts about important events. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than this.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, last week the world commemorated the ninth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre where an estimated 2,000 unarmed prodemocracy activists were mowed down with machine guns and tanks on the orders from the Communist Chinese dictators. Later this month President Clinton plans to be received by the Beijing regime at that very site. By doing the dictator's bidding, President Clinton will be disgracing the memories of those oppressed Chinese men and women who only wanted to enjoy the fruits of freedom, freedom that we as Americans take for granted. His presence at Tiananmen will be a setback for that cause and a public relations coup for the tyrants who routinely make a mockery of fundamental human rights. Mr. Speaker, the United States has long been a beacon of hope for those around the world who long for the freedom that we enjoy. By joining the Communist dictators at Tiananmen, the scene of that horrible, horrible massacre, he will be insulting those throughout the world who aspire to be free. Do not do it, Mr. President. Do not join the tyrants at Tiananmen Square.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Africa subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, for his exemplary leadership. He and the top-notch staff of the subcommittee have worked tirelessly to ensure that human rights issues in all of Africa are adequately addressed by the Congress. I want to express a special thank you to the chief co-sponsor of this resolution, my good friend from Florida, Alcee Hastings. Mr. Hastings has provided invaluable counsel and assistance during this process and I very much appreciate the hard work of he and his very able staff. I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, the Ranking Member, Mr. Menendez, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for their invaluable contributions to this bi-partisan resolution. Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Algerians--many of them women and children--have lost their lives since violent terrorist attacks began in 1992. Hundreds more perished during the holy month of Ramadan that ended just a few weeks ago. As many as 120 people--including 32 children under the age of 2--were killed by axe-wielding assailants during the last weekend in March. This resolution strongly condemns the perpetrators--the Armed Islamic Group, or GIA, and any other terrorist groups responsible for the atrocities committed in Algeria, and urges those who continue to engage in violence and the fundamental abuse of human rights to discontinue such activity immediately. The legislation, while acknowledging that the Government of Algeria has made progress toward democratization, calls on the Government to take all necessary and legal steps to prevent violence and stop it once it occurs, and encourages the Government to cooperate with the international community to ensure transparency in the combating of terrorist activity. Additionally, H. Res. 374 encourages the European Union and the Government of Algeria to further their mutual cooperation against terrorism. And, at the suggestion of Mr. Menendez, encourages the Algerian Government to accept the appointment of a Special Rapporteur by the United Nations or another qualified independent organization, to conduct an inquiry into the violations of human rights in Algeria. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the distinguished Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, Mr. Royce, as well our esteemed Chairman of the full International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, for their support in this effort. I believe it is a very timely resolution. I hope it will be helpful in bringing an end to the senseless tragedies. And I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Judicial Reform Act. As my colleagues know, this legislation contains language authored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) and myself that would permit Federal judges in appropriate situations to allow the televising of civil and criminal trials or appeals. Again, it would permit it, but it would not require cameras in the courtroom. It is at the discretion of the trial judge. Open, public trials have a longstanding tradition in our country. The framers of the Constitution required public trials because they recognized that a thriving democracy depends on a well-informed public. They knew that the public needs to see how an important branch of the Federal Government works, or, in some cases, does not work, and they understood that the dignity of the court comes from the courtroom itself and from the values and beliefs on display. Those values and beliefs are invigorated, not undercut, as opponents of open government would argue, by giving the people the ability to see our judicial system in action. Chief Justice Berger, for example, once wrote, ``People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.'' An informed citizenry also is essential to our constitutional system of checks and balances. The Federal courts play a very important part in our government. Federal judges, after all, serve for life. The American people deserve the opportunity to see how they operate. We need to encourage deeper understanding and further national discussion of the proper and properly limited role of the Federal judges. In an age where new technological breakthroughs are made every day and televisions are present in virtually every American home, it is inconceivable that access to the courts would be strictly limited to those Americans who have the time and ability to personally visit a courthouse. Our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago wanted our Federal courts to be open, and they are open. But who has the time nowadays to take off of work or to take away from the time in raising their families to go down to the Federal courts, which are generally downtown? They should have the ability to view what is going on in those courtrooms at home. After all, those courts do not belong to the judges; they belong to the people. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and myself. The amendment gives important protections to witnesses who may be otherwise reluctant to testify in a televised trial by requiring upon request of the witness that the face and voice of the witness be disguised or obscured in such a manner that it will not be evident who that person is testifying. I think it is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, serious concerns have been raised by law enforcement, US Customs, drug abuse prevention counselors and commissions, independent studies and media reports about the trafficking of controlled substances from Mexico. ``Controlled substances'' are drugs that the Drug Enforcement Administration has either banned or subjected to closely regulated status because of their danger, addictiveness and potential for abuse. Controlled substances include illegal drugs such as heroin and closely- regulated legal drugs such as Valium. Currently, it is particularly easy for an individual to purchase dangerous controlled substances in Mexico. These uppers, downers, hallucinogens, and ``date-rape drugs'' are obtained from so-called ``health-care providers'' or ``pharmacists'' in Mexico with no documentation of medical need; then legally imported into the United States; and, according to DEA, frequently sold illegally on the street. Mexican drug sellers even include detailed instructions to help Americans avoid arrest or drug confiscation--these instructions tell Americans: ``Don't use marijuana or cocaine for 2 days before because dogs may smell.'' ``Don't open boxes in Mexico.'' ``Customs and Border Patrol don't care about medication.'' ``Medication must be used only in U.S.A. not in Mexico.'' Ironically, while Mexican authorities don't mind supplying dangerous drugs to American citizens, they strictly prohibit their use in Mexico. In fact, there have been high-profile cases where U.S. citizens have been arrested for opening sealed boxes of controlled substances while still on Mexican soil. This gaping hole in U.S. drug policy exists because of a so-called ``personal use'' exemption to the Controlled Substances Act that allows American drug dealers to bring in up to a 90 day supply of such drugs without a legitimate prescription or medical purpose, as long as they are declared at the border. This exemption is so lax that studies along the southwest border have found records of people bringing in thousands of pills in one day--multiple drugs and thousands of pills in a single day for ``personal use.'' A 1996 study published in Clinical Therapeutics, entitled Pharmaceutical Products Declared by US Residents on Returning to the United States from Mexico by McKeithan and Shepherd raises serious concerns about the trafficking of controlled substances along the U.S.- Mexico border. The number and types of pills that the Shepherd study found at a typical border crossing backup DEA's view that these drugs are being used for illegal purposes. The Shepherd study estimated that in just one year at the Laredo border crossing, over 60,000 drug products were brought in to the U.S. by more than 24,000 people. All of the top 15 drug products, which represent 94.1 percent of the total quantity of declared drugs, were controlled substances. These dangerous drugs, classified as prescription tranquilizers, stimulants, and narcotic analgesics, are potentially addictive and subject to abuse. Specifically, Valium was declared by 70 percent of the people, with the average person bringing in 237 tablets. Rohypnol, commonly referred to as the ``date-rape drug,'' was brought in by 43 percent of those who declared their prescription medication. Over a full year, that means that over 4 million doses of Valium and almost 1.5 million doses of Rohpnol where brought in at a single border crossing. Further, the median age for those who declared Valium and Rohypnol was 24 and 26 years old respectively. Fortunately, Rohypnol, which is ten times more potent than Valium, has recently been banned for importation into the U.S. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of dangerous controlled substances, readily available in Mexico, that pose similar threats to American citizens. This blatant perversion of our nation's drug laws must be stopped. The personal use exemption should allow American citizens who become injured or ill while traveling abroad to bring needed medicine back into the United States--it was never intended to allow drug dealers to legally import large quantities of hazardous, mind-altering drugs into our communities. Mr. Speaker, I have been working with Customs, DEA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to solve this problem. The legislation I have proposed offers a targeted and straight-forward solution to this problem. My proposal would limit the exemption for individuals who do not posses a prescription issued by a U.S. physician or documentation which verifies a legitimate prescription. An individual without this documentation would be limited to 50 dosage units of a controlled substance. The 50 dose limit would provide those people who have a legitimate need for a controlled substance ample time to seek medical attention in the U.S. while virtually eliminating the abuses that are now prevalent along the U.S. border. I want to be very clear about what this legislation does and does not do: The legislation is strictly limited to controlled substances. Again, controlled substances are drugs that the DEA has either banned or subjected to closely regulated status because of their danger, addictiveness and potential for abuse. The legislation is strictly limited to those individuals that do not posses a U.S. prescription or documentation that a prescription exists. The legislation does not impact the ability of people with a prescription issued by a U.S. doctor to import any medications, including controlled substances. The legislation does not in any way change current U.S. law as it relates to the importation of prescription drugs that are not considered controlled substances. In other words, this legislation will not make it more difficult for people to obtain drugs to treat heart disease, cancer, AIDS or other serious illnesses, because these drugs are not controlled substances. In fact, none of the top 20 heart, cancer or AIDS drugs are controlled substances. I would also like to note that although this problem occurs primarily along the Mexico border, it impacts communities well beyond the southwest. The study in Laredo found that residents from 39 states crossed the border and returned to the United States with a variety of drug products in large quantities. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial proposal. DEA and Customs identified this as a critical problem over two years ago. General McCaffery has written to me and expressed his belief that there is general agreement among my office, ONDCP, DEA, and Customs regarding the scope of the problem and the proposed solution. Members of this House recognize that prescription drug abuse is a serious problem in this country, and a growing problem among our youth. The purity and low price of prescription pills makes them an attractive alternative to street drugs. More Americans abuse prescription drugs for non-medical purposes than use heroin, crack and cocaine. Surprisingly, prescription painkillers, sedatives, stimulants, and tranquilizers account for 75 percent of the top 20 drugs mentioned in emergency room episodes in 1995. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue that must be addressed, and I appreciate the leadership of Mr. McCollum, the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, and the other supporters of this legislation on this important issue.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, an American who goes abroad can brag about a lot of things about our country, but one thing he cannot brag about is the American Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, just look at what has happened over the last 75 years. Back in 1913, the Tax Code was 14 pages. Now it is 3,500 pages. From 14 pages to 3,500 pages. That is not progress in my book. The Tax Code is 3,500 pages of incomprehensible regulations, exemptions, loopholes and other absurdities just to figure out how much we, as citizens, owe Uncle Sam. I suspect that an American who goes abroad will have a long list of things to be proud of, but that list will not include our Tax Code. The Tax Code is not logical. It is virtually incomprehensible and it is not fair. It is time to scrap the Tax Code in favor of a simple, low tax rate that will be the envy of the world.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, and I want to commend my friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his leadership and his hard work on this important legislation. It is nice to see Mr. Portman's son Jed, who is 7 years old and in the second grade, on the floor of the House here this morning with his father, because his generation will benefit from the passage of this legislation in many ways. Congratulations, Jed. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) of the Committee on International Relations and also the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for all their leadership in shepherding this bill through the committee. I am pleased to be one of the original 16 cosponsors with my colleagues on this particular committee in supporting this legislation. Tropical forests provide a wide range of benefits to the entire world. They help to reduce greenhouse gases. They house many of the species used in the developing of lifesaving pharmaceutical products. They affect rainfall, which of course affects crop production and coastal resources worldwide. As these forests continue to be exploited, last year an estimated 30 million acres, for example, were lost, the need to save them becomes more and more urgent. Mr. Chairman, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act is a sound, free- market approach to a very serious global environmental problem. It will encourage the preservation of tropical forests without creating a burden for the American taxpayer. It is good, sensible legislation. It is worthy of our support. I urge adoption of the legislation. I want to again compliment and commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for proposing this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, while millions of Americans took time out last Sunday night to either defend or condemn the President's job interviewing techniques, the clock kept right on ticking towards that April 15 deadline. That is right, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the April 15 tax filing deadline, a National day of reckoning for taxpayers across the Nation. Most Americans tend to put off their tax filing because it is such an unpleasant task. Do my colleagues realize that Tax Freedom Day this year is May 9, which means that everything they earn until May 9 goes to Washington and only after that are they entitled to the fruits of their labor? The Tax Code is so complex that millions of Americans need to pay for professional help just to figure out how much they owe. Mr. Speaker, Washington is giving the taxpayers of this Nation a lousy deal. Washington wastes too much of the taxpayers' money and then adds insult to injury by making it almost impossible to figure out how much this Government is going to fleece them for. It is taxpayer abuse, plain and simple.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the resolution. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, for offering this thoughtful and timely resolution. As a member of the subcommittee, I have had the pleasure of working closely with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce). I think I speak for all the Members when I say we appreciate his able leadership. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the committee; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the ranking member of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for their work on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, Botswana is one of the great success stories of sub- Saharan Africa. As the President prepares to embark on his historic trip to that part of the world, it is fitting that we send along a message of commendation and encouragement to the government and the people of Botswana. Under the leadership of President Masire, Botswana has maintained a successful, multiparty constitutional democracy with free and fair elections. This resolution commends Mr. Masire on the occasion of his retirement and calls upon his political successors to continue promoting peace, democracy, respect for human rights and economic reform in Africa. Mr. Speaker, this is a well-crafted resolution that deserves the support of every Member of this body. I want to again commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the other Members that I referred to. I also want to commend the President on making this trip to Africa. I urge support for the resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. The main purpose of this legislation is to give those who feel that their property has been taken by an action of the Federal Government the ability to file a single suit in a single Federal court of their choice, either the court of claims or the Federal district court. This amendment would take that choice away and force them to file in a district court, requiring them to forgo the expertise of the court of claims. Under current law, when a person believes that they have suffered a taking by the Federal Government, they face an unfair decision that makes them choose between compensation and putting a stop to the action. Although this amendment represents a step in the right direction when compared to the current law, it should be rejected in favor of the broader step taken in the underlying legislation. Finally, Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his perseverance in pushing this legislation to help those who are already burdened by uncompensated takings to get their day in court. I am proud to have cosponsored this important legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1342, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. As the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Royce) have pointed out, this legislation creates a transition path from developmental assistance to economic self-reliance for those countries in sub-Saharan Africa committed to economic and political reform, market incentives, and private sector growth. Mr. Chairman, while we have seen much turmoil and tragedy in Africa in recent years, we have also witnessed a number of positive developments on the continent. Since 1990, for example, more than 25 African countries have held democratic elections. More than 30 nations have taken steps to institute market-oriented economic reforms. Many of us who have worked regularly on African issues are hopeful and confident that those numbers will continue to increase. I have talked with a number of African leaders, having had the opportunity to travel to Africa recently on a CODEL headed by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and many of the leaders who would greatly like to move away from dependency on foreign assistance and move towards economic self-reliance. The adoption of the African Growth and Opportunity Act will help to move that process forward. On an editorial which appeared this morning in the Washington Times, after being generally supportive, they stated, ``The problems faced by Africa are not going to be solved by a single piece of U.S. legislation. But too often, our Africa policy has been an ad hoc response to crises. If Congress passes this bill, there is a chance to get the policy on a firm footing at last.'' I agree with the Washington Times editorial this morning. I want to thank particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations itself, for crafting this legislation and bringing this bill forward. It is a balanced bill and it makes a lot of sense. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, as Congress considers budget legislation this year, it might be helpful to recall a few things about our constitutional system. Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. And for the taxpayers, it is a good thing the Republicans control Congress, because we all know what happened to spending and to the deficit over the past 40 years, the 40 years when liberal Democrats controlled the Congress. Consider the 1980s when President Reagan was President. The Democrats controlled Congress and spent more than Reagan asked for 7 out of 8 of those years, and then turned around and blamed President Reagan for the deficits. Think of it. Democrats in Congress refused to control spending, adding more and more big government programs each and every year, and then blamed President Reagan for the deficits. Well, now Republicans control Congress by a slim margin and the ``big spender'' is down in the White House. We must reject his proposals to spend any projected surpluses and instead let us pay down the national debt and let us cut taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton just 3 years ago proposed a 5-year budget with $200 billion deficits every year for as far as the eye could see. We Republicans said no. We said no to big government, no to using phony numbers. We in Congress insisted on passing a bipartisan budget that balanced and that kept the lid on spending. Well, here we go again. It is back to budget-busting time. Once again it is going to be up to Congress to act like grown-ups and keep a lid on spending. The President's budget expands entitlement spending. It puts the Medicare program in jeopardy only 1 year after we acted to save it. Taxes go up and up again in the President's budget. Tax and spend, tax and spend. No matter how good the White House can spin it, and they are very good at spinning, the President's budget is a tax and spend budget. Mr. Speaker, let us balance the budget. Let us pay down the national debt. Let us really save Social Security, not with smoke and mirrors. And let us give the American people the much deserved tax relief.