Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this taxpayer protection amendment. Early in this century, Congress passed a constitutional amendment to make it easier for the Federal Government to tax people. The 16th amendment authorizes a direct Federal income tax. Now as we near the end of the 21st century we have some significant experience with heavy Federal taxation. I think one inescapable conclusion we must draw from our Nation's experience is that the Federal Government does not find it difficult to raise taxes. Rather, it finds it all too easy. We need to pass structural constitutional protections for the American taxpayers, to make it harder to raise taxes. Most of what goes on in this town involves taking and spending other people's money. Political power determines how much money is taken away from people who earn it, and political power determines to whom that money is given. People who have to spend most of their time earning a living for themselves and to support their families do not have very much time or very much say over how the taxing and spending goes on in this town. And they get ripped off time and time again. For example, just look at the so-called market access program under which money is taken away from taxpayers and given to corporate trade associations to advertise their products overseas. Sure, it is a ripoff, a $100-million-a-year ripoff. But the big corporations that benefit from it have real incentives to lobby here in Washington to keep the transfers going and the money coming from the taxpayers, and the taxpayers get hit. In recent years to pay for programs like this, the Federal Government has raised taxes on the gasoline people buy. It has raised taxes on working seniors. It has raised taxes on small businesses. The Government's share of the average American family income has gone up, when it was born, from around 5 percent, now it is 25 percent. That is a 500-percent increase just during my lifetime. We all know the Federal Government has not gotten 500 percent better. The Government taxes people to pay for the entertainment of rich elites in the NEA. The Government taxes people to build roads through national forests for private lumber companies. The Government taxes people in order to subsidize the profits of various utility companies. Those who argue that we cannot have structural protections in the Constitution requiring a supermajority here ignore other similar protections: the requirement that a bill pass through two different Houses of Congress, for example; the power of the President to veto legislation; it takes two-thirds to override a Presidential veto; the constitutional limitations restricting Federal power to specifically enumerated areas. All of these are valuable protections against congressional abuse. Oppressive increases in Federal taxation have got to stop. We cannot keep increasing the frequency with which Congress goes back to the well and raises taxes over and over again. It is too easy for the Government to raise taxes on hard-working American people. I urge passage of this protection for the American taxpayer.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the character of the Clinton administration was on display for the entire world to see when Vice President Gore recently clinked champagne glasses with Li Peng, the mastermind of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Fortunately, the tough and thoughtful comments made by the Speaker of this House served as a welcome contrast. The Vice President cited that relationship between two great nations and civilizations in his tribute to the Communist dictatorship in Beijing. Well, he was half right. The United States of America is indeed a great Nation, but then our Government does not imprison priests and monks and other religious people. Our Government does not force women to have abortions against their will or sanction torture or throw in jail those who express opinions that do not reflect the official government line. Mr. Speaker, the Vice President's remarks sent the wrong message to China, but as the Cincinnati Post editorialized last week, it was refreshing to see the Speaker actually say face to face to the Chinese what is frequently discussed in the United States: Human rights do matter, and the truth needs to be told.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortions should not be a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans who share a fundamental belief that life is precious are in agreement: The partial-birth abortion procedure is gruesome, it is hideous, and it is unnecessary. We believe that life should be protected, not cut short by a pair of scissors in the hands of an abortionist. If there is one good thing that we can do this year, one thing that would save the lives of children who are being brutally killed, it is the passage of legislation that would outlaw this terrible procedure. Members on both sides of the aisle know how atrocious it is, and we have all heard the grisly details, because we know the truth, that thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed each year on healthy mothers with healthy babies. We must act now to ban this terrible procedure. Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple. We can either turn our backs and allow thousands of babies to be killed at the very moment of birth, or we can vote to preserve life, protect innocent children and ban partial-birth abortions once and for all. I urge passage of this important legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Mexico's President Ernesto Zedillo made some very troubling comments last week following the House vote to decertify his country for its miserable performance in the war against drugs. President Zedillo said, ``This is where we draw the line.'' He had it wrong. This is where we draw the line. Mr. Zedillo went on to say that Mexico's sovereignty and dignity as a nation are not negotiable. I would point out to Mr. Zedillo that the dignity of his nation was not diminished by the House action last week, but by the failure of his own government to responsibly fight against the scourge of narcotics traffic through Mexico. Blocks from this Nation's Capitol, one can see the horror of drug abuse. Whether we are talking about cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine, there is a pretty good chance it came to this city and other American cities like my community, Cincinnati, from Mexico. Sadly, the demand is here, and as Americans we have an obligation to do something about the demand, but as a neighbor, Mexico has an obligation to become an equal partner in that battle. Up to now they have failed. That is why this body finally drew the line. It is about time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, whenever natural disaster strikes, America gets a few new heroes, selfless individuals who come to the aid of their neighbors in need. Earlier this month Cincinnati, my community, was one of those river communities in the Midwest that felt the effects of the worst floods in the last 30 years. And true to form, Cincinnatians were at their best, from the city and county employees who worked day and night, to the charitable organizations, churches, schools and businesses, to neighborhood folks who lent a helping hand. One of the most heartwarming stories I heard centers around two young ladies from Oakdale School in Bridgetown: Paige Craynon, who is 9 years old, and April Pitman, who is 10. On their own, Paige and April went door-to-door collecting items to help suffering flood victims. Then their classmates at Oakdale School joined in and brought in supplies to help those in need. That is what America is all about, Mr. Speaker. Let me join my colleagues and my fellow Cincinnatians in congratulating Paige and April and all their classmates at Oakdale School for a job well done.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan resolution, and I commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for his strong leadership in this area. As my colleagues know, our Nation's chief drug enforcement officer on February 25 said, ``There is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom the DEA has an entirely trusting relationship.'' Yet on February 28, just 3 days later, President Clinton determined that Mexico has cooperated fully with the United States in the war against drugs. Finding that determination incredible, I asked a DEA official at a hearing last week if in fact his drug-fighting agency could cooperate in fighting against drugs in this country when there has not been full cooperation, and when we cannot fully trust and depend upon that particular country and the agencies there. He said absolutely not. We have a serious drug problem in this country, and as the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] in committee and I and many others recognize, we in this country certainly share some of the blame. There is a demand from this country, and we have to fight against that demand coming from this country. But we must also understand that the demand within our own borders is so much easier to satisfy because of the tremendous amount of narcotics flowing across the borders from Mexico. The State Department, the very agency that is defending President Clinton's decision to certify here on Capitol Hill, reports to us that approximately 80 percent of the marijuana entering this country comes through Mexico, 70 percent of the cocaine, 30 percent of the heroin. We have learned Mexico now dominates the methamphetamine market. Yet in recent days President Clinton has stepped up his efforts to uphold his determination that Mexico is fully cooperating in the war against drugs. That, I believe, sends a very bad message to the American people, Mr. Speaker, and it sends a bad message to Mexico as well. Mr. Speaker, some of those who oppose this resolution maintain that decertification of Mexico will lead to destabilization of Mexico. I disagree. In fact, I agree with the New York Times, a paper I do not always agree with. They say that decertification is certainly something we have to consider.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, a lot of the backroom deals in this town involve taking money away from middle-class people who work for it and then giving it to special interests who lobby for it. One of the most outrageous transfer programs around now is called the Market Access Program, or MAP. In this particular scheme the Government takes money away from taxpayers and gives it to corporate trade associations to advertise their products overseas. We are dipping into the pockets of average Americans in order to subsidize private, politically preferred business dealings. So when I say the program is outrageous, I mean just that. It should cause outrage. It is about as close to legalized theft as you can get. If businesses want to advertise overseas, great. They should do it, but with their own money. They should not beg Congress to squeeze the taxpayers even more than they are already squeezed with the high taxes we have in this country. That is why the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and I have introduced H.R. 972, the Market Access Program Elimination Act. If you want taxpayers to be able to keep more of their own money rather than having it go to groups like the Dry Pea and Lentil Council, please join us in this effort. Let us get rid of the Market Access Program.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, a time-honored tradition in this body is now under attack. I am speaking of that period, this time right now, set aside each day for one-minute speeches. It has been a long practice for Members to come to the well of the Chamber each morning to speak briefly about pending legislation, a tribute to a group or individual back in their district, or a soon-to- be introduced bill. Sadly, some would like to move those speeches to the end of the legislative day, I believe to stifle debate. I, like many of my colleagues, strenuously oppose that idea. One-minute speeches often give Members, particularly junior Members, a chance to speak when they otherwise might not have the opportunity to do so. As my colleagues know, a freshman or a sophomore Member might sit at a committee meeting for 2 hours before being able to pose one question to a witness. He or she, if lucky, might get 30 seconds to debate a pending bill on the floor. One-minute speeches give these Members and the people they represent back home a chance to be heard. Mr. Speaker, let us not silence Members of this body. Let us not stifle debate. Let us not kill the one-minute speeches.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan practice of beginning each legislative day with a series of 1-minute topical speeches is under attack. There is an effort in some quarters to muffle debate by pushing this segment back to the end of the day's proceedings. If that attempt succeeds, those Americans who try to follow this portion of the proceedings may be deprived of this important opportunity. These 1-minute speeches at the start of the business each day give Members, even of low seniority, the chance to speak on issues of real concern to the Nation. I know that I hear from people all over the country responding to what has been said during these 1-minutes, and I think those people all over the country who want to follow our proceedings would be deprived, and I do not want to see that happen. When individual Members seek to advance an agenda more far-reaching than even their leadership would propose, these 1-minutes provide a good forum for discussion. Morning 1-minutes were tolerated by Democratic leadership and they have been continued under Republican leadership. They should not be shoved to the end of the day in an effort to squelch the exchange of views.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to insert into the Record today an excellent article written by my friend, Ohio State Treasurer Ken Blackwell. Ken has become one of the Nation's leading voices for tax and budgetary reform, community empowerment and economic growth-- positions he articulated as a colleague of mine on the Cincinnati City Council, later as Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and now as Ohio treasurer. Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to participate in a Cincinnati event with Treasurer Blackwell in which he made a very strong case for immediate adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He elaborates on that message in his excellent op-ed piece, published recently in the Washington Times. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I commend the column to my colleagues. [From the Washington Times, Jan. 21, 1997] Balanced Budget Amendment Timing (By Kenneth Blackwell) Every generation or so, an idea that requires amendment or reinterpretation of the Constitution comes along. Just over 200 years ago, the idea was the Bill of Rights, adopted to make sure American citizens would never be subject to arbitrary federal intrusions on their liberty. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the idea was embodied in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments abolishing slavery, conferring citizenship and extending voting rights to a sizable and productive segment of our society. In the first two decades of the 20th century, the idea was women's suffrage. In the middle decades, the idea was fulfilling the promise of the 13th through 15th amendments. The idea now is the Balanced Budget Amendment. In ``My American Journey,'' Colin Powell says correctly the ``great domestic challenge of our time is to reconcile the necessity for fiscal responsibility with the explosive growth in entitlement programs,'' and that we have to face up to reducing the entitlement system or raise taxes to pay for it--we cannot continue to pass on to ``your children and grandchildren the crushing debt that we are currently amassing as their inheritance.'' Nobody these days is expressing much disagreement with the general's point. Eliminating the deficit is the motherhood issue of the '90s. Everybody is in favor of it. The question I ask opponents of a Balanced Budget Amendment is: If they are so in favor of motherhood, what do they have against marriage? Why should we not solemnize with a constitutional contract our commitment to do what they agree must be done about our spending? Two of William F. Buckley's current ``Firing Line'' series feature the Balanced Budget Amendment. I was part of the team supporting it; the other side was led by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I think most observers would agree that nobody opposing the amendment is likely to grasp and articulate the arguments more effectively than he, so it follows for me that if his points can be addressed, the case for the amendment is made. The senator asserts that we should not try to solve every political problem by tinkering with the Constitution. True, but if it were not for some tinkering in 1913, the senator would now occupy his office only if he were able to campaign as effectively among members of the upper house of the New York legislature as he does among the state's registered voters. We have been trying to fix the deficit problem with legislative action for more than 20 years, but our legislative and executive branches have lacked the political will to get it done. Some political problems can be solved only by amendment. The 17th Amendment was not tinkering, and neither is the Balanced Budget Amendment. The senator noted that states have become dependent on federal monies, and he asked what the impact of the amendment would be on Ohio. The answer is it will be a $2.4 billion hit or about 8 percent of the state's budget. Cutting spending enough to make up for this loss will not be fun, but we are already making plans to do it, and other states can do the same. Opponents say the federal budget is too complex, that a workable amendment simply cannot be drafted. If they really believed that, we would not be having this debate. The opponents would pass it, watch it fall of its own weight, spend around the wreckage, and blame proponents for a dumb plan. Forty-eight states have a working balanced budget requirement. It is precisely because it can be made to work at the federal level that they are so against it. Opponents say an ironclad amendment would leave us unable to come up with funds to fight wars or recessions. One sentence from the 14th Amendment will dispose of this objection: ``Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such a disability.'' And if two-thirds of each house cannot be persuaded to agree, then maybe the bills for such wars or economic problems are not ones we should leave for our grandchildren. The historian Henry Brooks Adams wrote in 1907 in ``The Education of Henry Adams'' that ``Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.'' With the amendment, our elected representatives at the federal level will have to choose between offending taxpayers by paying for programs as we go or offending important constituencies by facing the fact that we cannot afford their programs. With no amendment, our politicians can meet the Adams test of practicality by continuing to ignore the fact that their programs are affordable only if we stick generations to come with the tab. The only salient questions about a Balanced Budget Amendment have been asked before in the context of all the other amendments. If not us, who? If not now, when? The questions are unanswerable for opponents of the amendment. For proponents, the answers are clear. The who is us. And the time is now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton recently rolled out the red carpet for one of the most repugnant figures of our time, Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian, better known as the butcher of Tiananmen Square. General Chi ordered the slaughter of hundreds, perhaps thousands of brave Chinese students who were demonstrating for freedom. The picture of General Chi's tanks rolling in to crush the democracy movement remains etched in our minds forever. It was almost incomprehensible, then, to learn that our President would honor Chi at the White House. I am not sure whether coffee was served but sickeningly our military was ordered to give the butcher a 19-gun salute. Meanwhile Chi denied that the Tiananmen Square massacre ever occurred. I do believe that we can improve human rights in China by increasing our presence there and promoting American values. Increased contacts with China can help but only if we follow the course set by President Ronald Reagan in speaking the truth about evil. We must not shrink from calling evil by its name, and we must not paper over truth about tyrants such as Chi, no matter what positions they occupy or what ties we are seeking.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has embarked on what is no less than a worldwide crusade promoting abortion on demand at any time for any reason anywhere. I cannot condemn that policy in words strong enough. So let me just make a quick point in the short time that I have to speak this morning. Contrary to what some of those on the other side have said, this vote is indeed about abortion. It has always been about abortion. We simply say to foreign nongovernmental organizations: Unless you agree not to perform abortions, and not to violate the laws, and lobby to change the laws, of other countries with respect to abortion, then don't come to this country asking for tax dollars. That is all we are saying. I have only been in Congress for a little more than two years yet I am voting today for the eighth time on the restoration of the Mexico City policy--a simple, straight-forward pro-life policy initiated by President Reagan carried on by President Bush and eagerly decimated by President Clinton in his first days in office. I hope that this year, the Congress will finally bring this debate to an end and do the right thing Let's stop the international abortion crusade today.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has embarked on what is no less than a worldwide crusade promoting abortion on demand at any time for any reason anywhere. I cannot condemn that policy in words strong enough. So let me just make a quick point in the short time that I have to speak here this morning. Contrary to what some of those on the other side have said, this vote is indeed about abortion. It has always been about abortion. We simply say to foreign nongovernmental organizations, unless you agree not to perform abortions and not to violate the laws or lobby to change the laws of other countries with respect to abortion, then do not come to this country asking for tax dollars. That is what we are all saying. That is what it is all about. I have only been in Congress for a little over 2 years now, yet I am voting today for the eighth time on the restoration of the Mexico City policy. A simple, straightforward pro-life policy initiated by President Reagan, carried on by President Bush and eagerly decimated by President Clinton in his first days in office. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this year the Congress will finally do the right thing and stop the international abortion.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it has become popular to say that there are no significant philosophical differences in this town anymore. I do not buy it. Take, for one small example, an exchange that took place here in Washington just yesterday. One of our distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], asked President Clinton's Treasury Secretary a very good question yesterday: Why does the President propose to cut off the $500 per child tax credit for any parent whose child reaches the age of 13? Why is it somehow less expensive for a working mom to care for a 12-year-old than it is to care for a 13-year-old? Well, said the Treasury Secretary, the Government has to be careful how it, quote, spends its scarce resources. Now, that is where I have a major difference with the administration. When a parent is able to keep some of the money that he or she works very hard to earn, that is not an example of the Government spending money. It is not our money, to begin with, here in Washington. It belongs to the people who earn it. We ought to cut taxes, and let us begin to do it now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment before the Congress adjourns for the year to congratulate our friends and allies in the Republic of China as they prepare to celebrate their National Day on October 10. As my colleagues know, the Taiwanese people recently made history as they successfully and peacefully held the first Democratic elections in over 4,000 years of Chinese history. President Lee Teng Hui and the people of the Republic of China are to be commended for that landmark achievement. I join with my colleagues in the Congress and my many Taiwanese- American friends in Cincinnati and around the country in congratulating the people of the Republic of China on this, the 85th anniversary of their National Day.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment before the Congress adjourns for the year to congratulate our friends and allies in the Republic of China as they prepare to celebrate their National Day on October 10. As my colleagues know, the Taiwanese people recently made history as they successfully and peacefully held the first Democratic elections in over four thousand years of Chinese history. President Lee Teng Hui and the people of the Republic of China are to be commended for that landmark achievement. I join with my colleagues in the Congress and my many Taiwanese- American friends in Cincinnati and around the country in congratulating the people of the Republic of China on this, the 85th anniversary of their National Day.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to assist in the establishment of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati. And I applaud my good friend, Mr. Portman, for his outstanding work in helping to make this wonderful idea a reality. Cincinnati is the ideal location for a center commemorating the Underground Railroad and the brave men and women who risked their lives for the cause of freedom. As a large city located at the boundary line between slave and free States before the Civil War, Cincinnati became a major depot of the Underground Railroad. For many, many men, women, and children fleeing the evil bonds of slavery, Cincinnati meant freedom. As a life-long Cincinnatian, I am tremendously proud that the Queen City served as a major center of organization for the abolitionist movement. The city was a hub of organizations working to end slavery and to assist the escape to freedom of former slaves. We have a great tradition in Cincinnati of standing up against tyranny and government oppression and fighting for individual liberty. Such notable figures as antislavery author Harriet Beecher Stowe, Liberty Party nominee James Birney, Republican Party organizer and later Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase, and many other historic opponents of slavery made their homes in Cincinnati. The people of Cincinnati enthusiastically support the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. The community has mobilized behind this important project to create a center that honors the Underground Railroad, and that educates today's generations about the great failings and the great heroism of our past. H.R. 4073 is an important bill, and I am proud to join with my friend, Mr. Portman, in urging its passage.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we cast hundreds of votes in this body every year. Very rarely do we vote on an issue as important as this one. I hope that my colleagues will do the right thing today and overwhelmingly vote to override the President's veto of the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act. We have debated this issue for quite some time now. We have listened to the experts, and Americans from all across this Nation, both prolife and prochoice, have spoken out against this particularly gruesome procedure. I have had people who are prochoice call my office and agree that there is no place for a procedure that is as barbaric, as gruesome as this in a civilized society. Mr. Speaker, I cannot urge my colleagues in strong enough terms to do the right thing: Vote to override the President's veto.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, Bill Clinton portrayed himself as a new Democrat. One of the things that was supposed to set him apart from the old Democrats was the belief shared by many people of goodwill that the welfare system was a mess, that it was broken and needed to be fixed. After two vetoes, we are now told that Bill Clinton may finally be prepared to sign a welfare reform package. If that is true, it is a very positive development. America needs, no, Americans demand serious, genuine welfare reform, and I frankly do not care who gets the credit. I do not care if it is the Republican Party or the new Democrats or the old Democrats or the blue dogs or the yellow dogs or the man on the moon. That part of it does not matter and does not change the fact that we desperately need to change welfare so that it honors family and it honors work. Mr. Speaker, reforming welfare is the right thing to do, it is the commonsense thing to do, and I say let us get it done now, no matter who gets credit for it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, last week this House once again passed historic welfare reform legislation. Twice before we have passed welfare reform, but twice the President has blocked that reform with his veto pen, even though candidate Clinton said he wanted to end welfare as we know it. Remember that? Mr. President, please tear down this wall to full participation in our society. Seldom has a government devised a program which has devastated so many lives in this country and only very, very rarely has the law of unintended consequences been so brutally applied. Families have been ripped apart. Attempts to work and save have been penalized, and generation after generation of children have grown up without seeing an adult go to work. This miserable welfare system must not continue. Let us replace welfare with work. Let us replace rigid bureaucracy with community and compassion, and let us replace vetoes with a signing ceremony.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to freeze COLA pay for Members of Congress. When I ran for Congress, I pledged to do my best to bring Federal spending under control, to balance the budget, and to support tax relief for working families. This new majority in Congress has made progress but because of President Clinton's vetoes we still have a long way to go. Accepting a cost-of-living pay increase at this time, I believe, would send the wrong message to the American taxpayers. Until we complete the job that we were elected to do, we have no business talking about pay raises. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Porter] if he would please engage me in a brief colloquy. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for his tremendous leadership in crafting this bill. I am most grateful for the gentleman's continued strong support for medical research. Two weeks ago, I introduced a bipartisan bill that would authorize expenditures for research into an extremely rare and deadly disease known as lymphangioleiomyomatosis, or ``LAM.'' LAM is especially cruel because it strikes only women, most of whom are of childbearing age. LAM victims develop painful cysts on their lungs and gradually lose their capacity to breathe. Because doctors know so little about LAM, they often misdiagnose it. Tragically, LAM patients die within 10 short years of their diagnosis. The intent of the LAM Disease Research Act is to build upon the excellent work undertaken by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; work encouraged by the gentleman and his subcommittee in its fiscal year 1996 report. Were the rules different, I would have offered the LAM Disease Research Act as an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriation. I understand, however, that such an amendment would be subject to a point of order. Therefore, I cannot offer my amendment. It is my understanding, however, Mr. Chairman, that money appropriated under this bill may be used by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to study LAM and work toward a cure. I ask the gentleman if I am correct in that understanding, and I know that he joins me in being greatly concerned about the deadly LAM disease.

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I want to commend him for his efforts in this area. I and many, many people afflicted with this disease really do appreciate his efforts.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about a rare but deadly disease called lymphangiomyomatosis, or commonly referred to as LAM. The disease is so little known, it is commonly misdiagnosed and we, therefore, lose many opportunities to find a cure for this disease. Currently, it is always fatal. LAM affects only women, primarily women of childbearing age. Abnormal cells are spread throughout the woman's lungs, making breathing more and more painful and eventually causing death. Most victims of LAM die within 10 years of the onset of the disease. The Federal Government does all sorts of things it should not do and it wastes literally billions of dollars every year on things like paying big corporations to advertise overseas, paying farmers not to grow crops. There is no legitimate Federal role in things like that, but there is an important Federal role in conducting research on killer diseases such as LAM. Tht is why 15 of us, both Democrats and Republicans, have proposed the LAM Disease Research Act of 1996, devoting $5 million to help fight this disease. We ask our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.