Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, remember when President Clinton told us that the era of big government is over? Well, apparently he has had a change of heart, because his latest budget proposal is a true monument to big government excess. Billions and billions and billions in new taxes, and billions and billions and billions in new Federal spending. So much for presidential promises, welcome back, big government. This Congress cannot and will not accept a return to the tax and spend days of old. Because the taxpayers in 1994 installed a new majority in Congress, family income is up, interest rates are down, unemployment is down, and tax relief is finally on the way. And the budget will soon show a surplus for the first time in a generation. It is no time to turn back the clock. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget completely ignores last year's balanced budget agreement by creating a variety of new spending programs and a host of new taxes. That is not what the taxpayers had in mind. Let us balance the budget. Let us cut taxes, let us do it now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we not let any distraction going on here in Washington get in the way of our responsibility to provide tax reduction and tax reform to the American people. With Federal taxes now approaching 20 percent of the Gross National Product, the highest peacetime figure in American history, and a runaway tax collecting bureaucracy that strikes fear in the hearts of every hard-working taxpayer, this Congress, notwithstanding the usual White House roadblocks, must move forward with tax cuts, tax simplification and tax fairness now. If the President chooses to oppose our efforts, let him explain his opposition to the American people. Mr. Speaker, a lot of things have changed for the better since fiscal conservatives replaced tax-and-spend liberals in the House majority here in Washington: welfare finally reformed, a balanced budget actually in sight, family tax relief on the way. But more relief is due the American people. We need to move with dispatch. The American taxpayers deserve no less.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has worked hard to balance the budget, reduce taxes on American families, and we passed the first balanced budget since 1969. We gave American families their first tax cut in 16 years. But while we have made some progress, let us face it, taxes are still too high, and the Federal Government still spends too much. This past weekend my legislative director Kevin Fitzpatrick and his wife Pam became the proud parents of a new baby girl, Elizabeth Ann Fitzpatrick. I have been honored to be asked to be the child's godfather. I am really proud of that. I know Elizabeth is very happy to be the newest member of the Fitzpatrick family, joining brother Spike and sister Katie. But when she learns over her lifetime she is going to have to pay almost $200,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on our national debt, then she is going to be justifiably upset. Mr. Speaker, children like Elizabeth should not be faced with this burdensome debt from the day they are born. Now that we are close to balancing the budget, this Congress should work to reduce our national debt so little kids like Elizabeth are not going to have to pay these huge amounts in taxes over their lifetime. Let's reduce taxes on our people.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to insert in the Record today an insightful speech delivered at the recent Global Change Conference here in Washington by Ohio's State Treasurer J. Kenneth Blackwell. As my colleagues know, despite considerable uncertainty about the significance of global warming, the Clinton administration is moving ahead with plans to reduce carbon emissions, or greenhouse gases in the United States to 1990 levels by the year 2010. The costs of achieving that goal, of course, will be absorbed by the American people in the form of higher energy costs and higher taxes. Mr. Blackwell very eloquently addresses the global warming issue and the fundamental flaws in the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty. I commend his speech to my colleagues. The Climate Treaty--The Right Answer to the Wrong Question As I began preparing for my part in today's discussion, I recalled a remark attributed to J. Pierpont Morgan. A woman is said to have approached him at a social gathering roughly 100 years ago and asked, ``Mr. Morgan, what is the stock market going to do?'' Morgan hesitated a moment and then gave the woman the full benefit of his years of money-accumulating experience. ``Madam,'' he said, ``the stock market will fluctuate.'' If J. Pierpont Morgan had been born 100 years later and specialized in climate instead of money, and if he were asked now what the climate is going to do, the same answer would be appropriate. ``Madam, the climate will fluctuate.'' I do not mean to suggest by this that we can ignore the possibility that this time Henny Penny may be right. The sky may be warming. The seas may rise. And it would be irresponsible to sit idly by doing nothing if there is a real chance that all the world's coastal cities will go under water in the next 50 or 100 years. Neither, however, do I believe it responsible to rush to the binding international agreement the Administration is proposing to replace the voluntary approach we agreed to in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The administration's proposal is a fast answer to incompletely formulated questions based on inadequate data. Fast answers all too often are half-baked. In this case, the kindest thing we can say about the fast answer is that it is not fast at all. At best, it is half fast. Just for starters, we do not know whether global warming is taking place now. It is true that surface temperature readings have gone up by about one degree Celsius over the past century. Some evidence suggests that over the past decade, however, modest global cooling may have occurred. At this point, we simply do not know. What we do know is that the Climate Treaty will not answer this question. Only time and serious scientific study will produce an answer. If global warming is taking place, we do not know the extent to which greenhouse gases may be responsible. For years, climatologists believed that the sun's energy output was constant, but I have read recently that some now believe the solar constant may not be constant at all. Variations in solar activity may well account for the one degree rise in global temperature recorded over the past 100 years. This one degree change may be an entirely natural progression following the Little Ice Age which ended about the time Mr. Morgan was sharing his wisdom on the stock market, and it may well prove to be cyclical. Even if in the face of all the scientific uncertainties, we could properly conclude that capping CO2 emissions would remove the potential threat of global warming, there is little reason to believe that the Administration's proposal will accomplish that objective. Even its supporters concede that emissions from China and India alone are likely to overwhelm the proposed reductions by the U.S. and Western Europe. Although the proposed Climate Treaty is not an answer to either the objective of understanding global warming or capping CO2 emissions, we can be certain that it will accomplish several other objectives. I think it will be helpful to consider some of them. First, if we want to hasten the day when the United Nations will be transformed from an association of sovereign states into a one-world governing body, the Climate Treaty will work! Some international entity will be necessary to enforce emission mandates. Many Americans bridled at the 55 mile per hour national speed limit. Imagine that fast answer expanded to cover all matters involving energy consumption, and imagine it administered out of Geneva instead of Washington, D.C. That's the path we are on if we accept binding international mandates. Second, many people complain about the fact that combined federal, state and local taxes take more of an average household's income than food, clothing and shelter. The Climate Treaty will address that complaint in several ways. Given the emission caps which would be required by the year 2010, and using mainstream economic assumptions, personal incomes will go down. In my home state of Ohio, real income per capita will drop almost 10 percent, so with no change in our income tax rates, taxpayers will pay less. This will squeeze the State, but we should be able to make up the roughly two percent shortfall in tax revenues. The good news does not stop with the reduction in income, and therefore income taxes. Housing and food prices will go up about 10 percent, and the cost of clothing will go up along with all other manufactured goods. Some skeptics will argue that the increased cost of the necessities should be accounted for as taxes, but we will at least have the appearance of a change in the relationship of taxes versus basics. Third, we should see some public health benefits from this proposal. Service jobs are usually less hazardous than manufacturing jobs, so those among the 34,000 Ohioans who lose their manufacturing jobs but exchange them for service jobs may thereby find work where they are less likely to suffer on-the-job injuries. This may not compute, because total employment is projected to fall by more than 58,000 jobs, but even so, workers are surely safer sitting at home than going into the perilous workplace. And these fortunate Ohioans will be encouraged to improve their health in other ways. Many will almost certainly choose to exercise more, at least during the winter, because their household energy bills will be nine hundred to eleven hundred dollars higher, so they will have to keep moving to stay warm. With food costs up nearly ten percent, meat consumption should go down, still another benefit. Fourth, increasing the cost of gasoline by fifty cents a gallon will surely reduce exposure to highway accidents. If people cannot afford to drive, they are less likely to be hurt as long as they do not walk on the road. I would like to wrap up my remarks with a political comment. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it is clear that President George Bush made at least two mistakes in his presidency, both having to do with the timing of major events. First, he should not have won the Gulf War so long before he had to run for re-election--the 1992 outcome would quite likely have been different if he had still had his post-war approval ratings in the 90's. Second, he should not have signed on to the Democratic Party's tax increase so close to the election. President Clinton certainly learned from that mistake! But on the global warming subject, President Bush was right on the money in 1992 when he agreed to voluntary, not mandatory, CO2 caps, and to continued scientific scrutiny of the warming phenomenon to see what future action would be indicated, what action would work, and what action would be worth what it cost.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all of my colleagues for their continued support of the effort to bring sunshine into our courts. Because of this dedicated bipartisan effort to bring cameras into our Nation's Federal courtrooms, this issue has become very familiar to legislators, attorneys, the media and the public. Again, I thank my colleagues for their efforts. I would like to emphasize to the American people and to members of Congress the importance of passing H.R. 1280, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. This Act, which Congressman Schumer and I introduced in April, allows for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, and televising of Federal court proceedings at the discretion of the presiding judge. Its passage in the next session of this Congress would protect the right of every U.S. citizen to see their judicial system at work and ensure the accountability of our Federal judges. Proceedings on the floor of the House of Representatives, as well as the Senate, are open to all citizens through C-Span, and the local and national television news, allowing the American people to stay appraised of the actions of the legislative branch of the Government. Why then, should the judicial branch be any different? Members of the Congress are elected every 2 to 6 years, Federal judges are appointed for life. Lifetime tenure for unelected officials confers a tremendous amount of power. The American people deserve to see for themselves what is happening in Federal courtrooms. I don't think anyone should be denied that right. One of the many clear benefits that cameras will bring to our Federal courts is a more open system, which will generate more faith in our judicial system. Chief Justice Berger 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.'' In many ways, the Federal courts were intended to be, and are, the most majestic and deliberative institutions of our Government. Why should our constituents not be allowed access to those institutions? Look across the street any day that the Supreme Court is in session. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of Americans amass hoping to be lucky enough to gain admittance to an argument before our Nation's highest court. Some are tourists, visiting the Nation's capital. Some are students on a school trip. All will see the impressive building that houses the Court, but most will not see the actual proceedings that occur inside. Why should the American people be kept in the dark? Why should they be forced to rely on the news media to interpret and filter the proceedings when, if cameras were allowed, they could watch it for themselves? As Judge Robert Bork has written, ``There is often great value in the public seeing the reality of the legal system or of a particular case rather than being left with unchallenged myth and media distortions. The courts are a public institution * * *''. The public needs to know that our judicial system is strong, stable and trustworthy. Another benefit of cameras is the effect that they will have on curbing judicial activism. Federal judges are appointed to interpret the laws set forth by the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, there seems to be a disturbing trend in the judicial system. Some judges have reached far beyond their Constitutional authority in recent years and begun to make their own laws. They seem to thrive on twisting the laws passed by Congress, and the Constitution, ignoring its plain meaning and in some cases extrapolating new doctrines. We need to hold judges accountable for their actions and decisions in our courtrooms. One of the best ways to do this is to keep the judicial system under the scrutiny of the public eye. We, all of us, as citizens and particularly as lawmakers have the absolute responsibility to ensure that the balance of powers is being respected by the third branch just as they scrutinize Congress and the executive branch. From civil rights to religious rights to property rights, to domestic tranquillity, the decisions of our Federal courts impact our constituents, shaping their lives and their liberties. Out constituents are able to watch C-SPAN to observe how these laws are formulated; they should be able to see how they are interpreted, as well. I would also like to address a concern of open courtroom opponents by entering into the Record an excerpt of a letter I recently received from Fred Goldman, father of murder victim Ron Goldman. ``The courts belong to the people and the public must have the right to see the process for themselves. Sometimes the system works and sometimes it does not. In either case, the public should have the ability to see for itself. Camera opponents love to argue that the camera's presence in the criminal trial of Ron's killer was somehow to blame for his acquittal. I know this is a popular argument, so I want to state clearly and for the record that I think this is wrong. We sat in the courtroom throughout the trial and we know the camera was not to blame.'' Fred Goldman has endorsed the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act and I want to thank him for his support. It also is important to remember that H.R. 1280 does not force Federal judges to admit cameras in every Federal court case regardless of circumstance. Instead, this legislation grants the presiding judge the power to decide in each specific case whether he or she will allow cameras in the courtroom. This allows judges to protect those who need the privacy of a closed courtroom, such as children, victims of sexual assault, and other sensitive cases in which the identity of those involved in the trial need to remain confidential or where there is reasonable concern or disruption. Finally, Mr. Speaker, 48 States have found that cameras work in their courtrooms. In my own State of Ohio, for example, Chief Justice Moyer has been at the forefront of pushing for camera access. In his words, ``* * * our opportunities to educate the public about the nature of our work are greatly enhanced by television. Given the technological advances of video equipment and satellite communications, we now have the emergence of Court TV * * * we long ago established the principle of open courtrooms with trials in full public view. Cameras are simply the logical progression of the tradition. If we are truly sincere about our efforts and desire to make the public more aware about the work and role of our courts, cameras must be a part of the process.'' Mr. Speaker, this Congress must commit itself to passing H.R. 1280 into law next session. Parts of this important legislation have already moved through Subcommittee, and I will be working hard to ensure that the bill continues to move forward, either as part of other legislation or as a stand alone bill. I continue to believe, along with many of my distinguished colleagues from both sides of the aisle, that cameras in Federal courts is key to the judicial branch being accountable and accessible to the American public. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act works to keep the American people informed about their Government, a government supported with their tax dollars. It is time to bring sunshine into our Federal courts. We have waited long enough.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, President Clinton told voters that if they supported a tax cut, they were selfish. He really said that. Here it is, in black and white. The President really said this. Unfortunately, this is a common view among liberals, so while this view may sound shocking, the only thing that is really surprising is that the President would actually come out and say out loud what liberals and many folks who believe like he believes actually think. It is their attitude that they are actually doing us a favor by letting us keep more of our own money. I find the idea that people should be scolded for thinking that they are the best judge of how to spend their own money is the perfect example of the arrogance that is so characteristic of very many elitist liberals. But at least we now know what the President really thinks. Let us continue to cut taxes and let hard-working Americans keep more of what they earn.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. I want to single out for special recognition, my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for the tremendous work he has done over the last several months on this critical issue. We in Cincinnati greatly appreciate his tireless efforts on behalf of all American taxpayers. The legislation before us this afternoon is taxpayer-friendly. It makes a number of important reforms in the areas of IRS daily operations, congressional oversight, and I think most importantly, taxpayers' rights. The legislation recognizes the time-honored American understanding that one is innocent until proven guilty by shifting the responsibility of proving one's case in tax liability disputes from the individual taxpayer to the Internal Revenue Service. This, I believe most taxpayers would agree, is a reform long overdue. Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is a great step in the right direction. We are bringing the IRS under control. Next we must bring taxes under control. While we have taken the first steps and have legislated tax relief for working American families, that relief will not come soon enough nor will the tax cuts be large enough. The President and his free-spending allies in the Congress have seen to that. But, notwithstanding the objections of our liberal friends, we must move forward with those efforts. The American people are taxed too much. And they will not be satisfied until we take even larger steps to relieve them of some of that burden. The fruits of labor belong to the working people, not to the government. And we will be failing in our duties to those hard-working taxpayers unless we step up our efforts to provide them with substantial tax relief. I urge support of the legislation and I encourage my colleagues to supplement this important tax reform measure with tax reduction legislation in the very near future.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton traveled to Virginia yesterday and told voters who favored a tax cut that they were selfish. I am not kidding, he really said that. In Virginia, like most places, working families pay Federal taxes and State taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and on and on, but Virginia, many folks pay a particularly odious tax, a car tax, a tax on their own personal vehicle which they must pay to the government year after year again and again. The Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia pledged to eliminate that tax, and that has made the President very angry. President Clinton is showing us the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals once again, between those of us who think working Americans pay too much tax and those that believe that the government can always bleed those so-called selfish taxpayers a little bit more. Mr. Speaker, today the so-called selfish taxpayers and voters of Virginia get to respond to the President. I wonder what they will have to say to him.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, in an apparent effort to illustrate its commitment to human rights during President Jiang Zemin's visit to the United States, the Communist Chinese Government just released a Roman Catholic bishop from prison. My question is this: What the heck was a Roman Catholic bishop doing in prison in the first place? The answer, of course, is that Bishop Su is a priest in what is known as the underground church, a church that does not take its orders from a Chinese dictatorship. I hope that between the champagne toast over at the White House, President Clinton does not forget to remind his guests that Communist China still has a long way to go when it comes to religious freedom, and that if the dictatorship wants our Government to take them seriously, they will open the prison doors and release all those believers they have jailed because they dared to practice their faith. Mr. Speaker, China and the world is watching.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, remember what President Clinton said when he first took office? He was going to have the most ethical administration in history. This is the same administration that held fundraisers in the White House and called them coffees. The same administration that held fundraisers in Buddhist temples and called them finance-related events. The same administration whose ethical standards led them to have sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom so that the people's house could be turned to fund-raising purposes. The same administration that dialed for dollars from the White House and then could not remember doing it. The same administration that denied the existence of videotapes of White House fundraising coffees and then discovered them in the same uncanny manner that subpoenaed documents in the White House Book Room were found, by the same people who could not remember hiring Craig Livingstone. The same administration that puts Dick Morris in charge of their family values charade and the same administration who hired the same Dick Morris to circumvent the campaign reform laws. Mr. Speaker, it is the same business as usual at the White House. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to line up to ask the Attorney General, Janet Reno, to hire an independent counsel so we can investigate this mess.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, just when we think our pocketbook is safe for a while, those folks over at the White House begin to dream up yet another new tax for the American people. Apparently, those same liberal economists who gave us the largest single peacetime tax increase in American history back in 1993 are now hard at work putting together an energy tax scheme that will increase the price of gasoline by up to 25 cents per gallon and the cost of home heating and electricity by hundreds of dollars a year. Here is what one anonymous Clinton administration official reportedly said about this possible new energy tax. Obviously, we would want to do it in a way that is least obvious to consumers, but, any way we do it, consumers are going to pay the cost. That is scary. Mr. Speaker, working Americans are finally going to benefit from some tax relief next year, thanks to the work of this Congress. Let us let them enjoy it and let us urge President Clinton to forget about any new taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to pay my compliments to a Cincinnati firm that is moving full speed ahead in an effort to bring cleaner air to southern Ohio and to the surrounding region. Cinergy Corp. announced yesterday that it will voluntarily reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from its plants by two-thirds from 1990 levels. The company will also conduct a demonstration of advanced technology at its plant in North Bend, OH, converting nitrogen oxide into harmless nitrogen gas and water. If successful, the technology could reduce nitrogen oxide emissions at the plant by 30 to 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, Cinergy's leadership in the ongoing battle for a cleaner environment in the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana region will hopefully encourage others in the energy-producing field to take similar positive steps on their own. I congratulate Cinergy, and I wish all of those involved in this critical environmental project the best of luck.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I think I am beginning to understand what the problem in education is today. It is pretty clear that everyone in the White House was educated in the 1960's style feel-good mushiness where rote memorization was taboo. How else to explain the astounding number of times the White House officials say ``I don't recall, I can't remember'' whenever they are asked to testify about all the various White House scandals under investigation. Mr. Speaker, what else are we to conclude if even the so-called best and brightest seem to have no capacity whatsoever to recall simple facts about the misdeeds of their employees? Is this perhaps a medical condition that we should be aware of, some kind of environmental problem in the water over at the White House that strikes at the very heart of the memory process? Mr. Speaker, the ``I do not recall'' problem over at the White House should not be allowed to infect the rest of the Nation, especially as children everywhere are heading back to school. Children should be taught that memory skills are important, too, that rote memorization that many of us had to do in schools, even if they are in short supply down at the White House.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] for yielding. As a parent and former school teacher myself I know firsthand the vital role that good schools play in our children's future. And I would like to thank my good friend from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] for offering this amendment, and for bringing his committee to my district in Cincinnati and looking at education and seeing what works there firsthand. This past May his committee came there, and we had many, many programs that we looked into and found out how they work there. The education reforms that we saw in Cincinnati were local initiatives that took root in schools only after being nourished by parents and teachers and local businesses and local folks. I want to emphasize that the Federal Department of Education played virtually no role in this at all. These were things that grew up locally and work very well. The amendment today would block grant 28 Federal programs into one block grant and the money has to be used in the classrooms. It can be used to purchase books, computers, but not to support the Federal bureaucracy. What this amendment does is it focuses the money and the attention on what really works in the classroom. Do we want to spent money in the classroom, or do we want to spend it on bureaucrats here in Washington? I support the Hoekstra amendment. I say let us spend money in the classroom, not on bureaucrats here in Washington.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we never know what we are going to learn next about the White House when we pick up the morning newspaper. Earlier this week we learned in the Washington Times that a former assistant White House chef had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination. It seems that the former head chef received a secret $37,000 payment and a good recommendation in return for keeping details of the firing quiet. According to the former chef, he was fired because, and I quote, ``He was fat and spoke with a French accent.'' We do not know exactly what was going on in the White House kitchen, but we do know that personnel problems at 16030 Pennsylvania Avenue are nothing new. We all remember the saga of Billy Dale, the civil servant whose life was thrown in turmoil and whose savings were drained when Mr. and Mrs. Clinton sought to staff the White House travel office with their own cronies. Let us see. We have suffered through Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Pillowgate, Buddhist Templegate, Filegate, and now, Kitchengate. Lord help us.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as America's schoolchildren head back to school, I am reminded of an old Steve Martin routine on ``Saturday Night Live.'' I am talking about the skit in which Steve Martin tries to explain away his breaking the law by saying, ``I forgot armed robbery was a crime.'' Mr. Speaker, teachers are used to all the lame excuses they get from their students about why they did not do their homework, or why they did not study for a test. But, Mr. Speaker, the excuses coming out of the White House about all their fund-raising irregularities would make even Steve Martin laugh. Maybe the White House needs to be reminded that accepting contributions from foreign nationals, directly or indirectly, for political campaigns is a crime. Maybe the White House needs to be reminded that laundering campaign contributions in order to hide the source of the funds is a crime; that selling Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for political contributions is a crime; that using government lawyers for private counsel is a crime. But who knows, Mr. Speaker? Maybe they just forgot.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, just when I thought it could not get any worse, I now know that liberalism is possibly incapable of hitting rock bottom. First, they give us whole language learning, which means that you never actually have to spell anything correctly, any guess will do, just make sure that you feel good about yourself when you do. Then just to push the envelope a little further, they give us whole math learning. You can imagine what that is. Just do not ask anyone who is educated in this manner, and I use the term loosely, to build a bridge for you or do your taxes for you. But now we have got the most incredible thing of all, I like to call it whole memory learning. Made fundraising calls from the White House, did not make the phone calls, DNC credit card, not really fundraisers, soft money, hard money, whatever. I think we ought to call it whole memory.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment this morning to make a plea for my colleagues and to the American people. I want to encourage as many of them as possible to join the National Bone Marrow Donor Program. There is a little boy in my district named Jake Siniawski. Jake is 7 years old, and he is suffering from a blood disorder called Fanconi Anemia. The only hope for a cure for Jake's illness is a bone marrow transplant from a donor with a matching tissue type. The good people of Cincinnati are sponsoring a marrow typing blood drive at St. Bernard's Church later this month in an effort to help Jake, and, God willing, a compatible donor will be found. But there are a lot of little Jakes out there, and they need our help. We can increase their chances of survival by participating in the National Marrow Donor Program. All it takes is a simple blood test, and it could help a little boy like Jake Siniawski live a long, healthy and happy life.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in 16 years, the American people are finally going to get a tax cut. To my friends on this side of the aisle who voted no in 1993, when President Clinton and the then- liberal Democratic majority engineered the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, I commend you for your hard work and your perseverance. To my colleagues who came here with me in 1995, pledging to cut taxes, I share in your excitement. We have delivered on our promise. Finally, to the liberals in this House, I offer my condolences. I know how difficult this must be for you. After years and years of taxing and spending, the tide has finally turned. The American people are going to get to keep more of the money that they earn, and Washington bureaucrats are going to have to learn to do with a little less. That is the way it ought to be. Mr. Speaker, the liberal minority has ranted and raved for the last several weeks about tax cuts for the rich, totally bogus. Next year when tax time comes, millions of working class Americans are going to realize that what they heard from the liberals was not true. Let us cut taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress, in historic legislation, we overhauled the welfare system as it applied to poor people in this country. I think it was good legislation, we are working on it now, but it affected poor people. There is one type of welfare that we have hardly touched in that Congress or this Congress and that is something called corporate welfare. Now corporate welfare affects the powerful, it affects the wealthy. We have hardly touched it. One particularly egregious type of corporate welfare in my opinion is something called the market access program. Now some of the folks on the other side on this issue will argue that it was reformed. This is a program where we spend $90 million a year in taxpayer money to advertise products overseas for trade associations and essentially for corporations. Now the folks who favor this will say, well, we reformed it already, and basically what was done is we changed the name of it from the market promotion program to the market access program. Big deal. That is essentially the reform that we did in the last Congress. I mean, should corporations advertise their products overseas to promote trade? Of course they should. But who should pay for it; the taxpayers or the corporations and the trade associations that benefit? I would argue not the taxpayers, but the people who benefit, the corporations themselves, ought to pay for this. If they were using their own money, they would be very careful. There is all kinds of examples where the money has been wasted. A good example was in the case where my colleagues probably remember the Marvin Gay song, and I think Gladys Knight and the Pips had it also: ``I Heard It Through The Grapevine,'' the California raisins commercial. Well, money from this program was used to advertise for raisins over in Japan. Now the problem is they did some surveys on this afterwards, and it turns out that they did absolutely no good at all. In fact, a lot of the people that saw the commercials, rather than think they were raisins, they thought they were potatoes. They actually scared small children. Now would the corporations who would have benefited from this program, if they were using their own money, would they have done a little research so that they did not waste this money? Of course they would. But since they are using taxpayer money, the research was not done, the dollars were wasted. They will argue, those who favor this program will say it creates jobs, but the real jobs it creates are government jobs or the bureaucrats in the department. So let us end this program.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the liberals are simply unwilling to give the middle class a break. They are playing the class warfare card again. They seem to do it all the time; it is happening again. Thanks to the wonders of something called the family economic income, middle- class families are defined as rich, and then of course the government should have the right to take away half of what one earns because the politicians should be allowed to spend that money instead of us. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to let the American people keep the money in their own pockets, decide how they want to spend it, not the politicians up here in Washington, and all of this is in the interest of fairness, so to speak. But if the family economic income argument is not working, then the liberals turn to their other rhetorical shenanigans. They want to turn a tax cut into a program, and get this: They want to give a check to people who are not paying any income taxes. This tax cut is supposed to be a cut for people who actually pay taxes. It is supposed to help particularly the middle class. The American people in this country are overtaxed, particularly the middle class. Let us give them a break, and let us do it now.