Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the buck on Filegate does not stop with White House political hack Craig Livingstone, who is now being paid not to work. As William Safire has pointed out, the problem extends to a White House counsel's office bent on stonewalling. But the obstruction goes even higher. On May 9 President Clinton directed his counsel to invoke Executive privilege and thereby conceal certain documents, including the White House request for FBI files on Billy Dale, months after he was fired. Now, get that, Mr. Speaker. By his own admission, the President knew about the smoking gun document at least as early as May 9, when he invoked Executive privilege for the first time since Watergate, yet he did absolutely nothing at that point to surrender the improperly requested FBI files. They remained in the custody of the White House for weeks after that time. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there was no justification whatsoever for the assertion of Executive privilege with regard to the FBI file request. And although that document eventually was turned over to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the President continues to assert the privilege with regard to some 2,000 additional documents. Mr. Speaker, the buck does not stop with Mr. Livingstone, not by a long shot.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. It is consistent with the assurances given during last year's debate that we will take the appropriate steps to phase out taxpayer funding in the National Endowment for the Humanities over a 3-year period. The rather modest reduction proposed in the bill does not appear to be consistent with that assurance that this would be phased out over 3 years. During last year's consideration of the Interior appropriation bill, I had offered an amendment that would have zeroed out funding for the NEH, but a lot of Members did not support that with an assurance that this would be phased out in 3 years, and that 3-year phaseout seems to be, at best, stalled, and that is one of the reasons we should support Mr. Shadegg's amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us take a look at the National Endowment for the Humanities, and I am not going to argue that it does not do anything that is good, but there are an awful lot of wasteful things done with the American people's tax dollars. It is important to note some of the things. For example, who can forget the Endowment's $1.7 million national conversation kit designed to teach Americans how to talk to one another? That was a kit that encouraged all of us to watch this little known movie called ``Casablanca.'' It was a good movie, but most of us had figured out long before the NEH told us about it that ``Casablanca'' was a good movie. And how about the $135,000 handout to a couple of dozen college professors so that they could take a summer trip to Chicago to talk about sex and gender in the middle ages? Or that $400,000 grant to a UCLA academic who produced something called the Art of Being Cuna, which I am told is an expressive culture of some islands down in Panama? Fine. But do not take the money out of the hardworking pockets of the American people and the people of my district in Cincinnati to pay for that stuff. If people want to fund it privately, fine, but do not take our hardearned tax dollars to do this. Mr. Chairman, there are an awful lot of things we need to fund. We are serious about balancing the budget. Support Mr. Shadegg' amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, why are taxpayers paying Craig Livingstone not to work? He is the guy who was involved in pawing through the private FBI background files on political opponents of President Clinton. Even the director of the FBI, a Clinton appointee, has termed his conduct ``an egregious violation of privacy.'' Does the buck stop with Livingstone? Do not bet on it. Others at the White House chose to plead executive privilege to cover this stuff up, but Craig Livingstone is the one that the White House has chosen to suspend. His job has now been reorganized out of existence, yet he continues to be paid with taxpayer dollars. True, there are probably a lot worse things than paying Craig Livingstone not to work, like paying him to continue his sleazy investigations of American citizens. It is not like he has been named as an unindicted coconspirator or something. Still, it is curious that he remains on the White House payroll. Very curious.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, when the privacy rights of American citizens are in jeopardy, partisan politics has no place. That is why I stood up to Members of my own party in fighting against giving the FBI more leeway to conduct warrantless wiretaps. I have opposed the so-called digital telephony scheme which would have expanded the FBI's power to eavesdrop on American homes. And I have taken on Members of my own party when I fought against the odious 1- 800-BIG-BROTHER employee computer registry plan. Thus, I am absolutely astounded by some of the political professionals in this town who have rushed blindly to defend the White House on this FBI file scandal. There is no excuse for White House operatives to rummage through the private FBI background files of political opponents. None. People who sacrifice all dignity in order to help the White House Stonewall and on filegate lose any right to call themselves civil libertarians. It is disgraceful and they should be ashamed.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the White House has now released statements from some of the political operatives involved in pawing through the confidential FBI background files of hundreds of political opponents. Those declarations are more important for what they do not say than for what they do. Craig Livingstone, the ex-bouncer and political hatchet man who is now being paid not to work, released his carefully lawyered statement saying that if he was asked to obtain FBI background files, and if he did obtain the files, and if he was asked to disseminate to other people the personal information that he learned from those files, and if he did give out that personal information to other people, well, then he did not do so for any purpose he thought was, quote, improper. The statement of course does not say what he defines as improper. The American people deserve to know exactly what happened and why. They deserve to know what the President means when he says that he takes full responsibility for this outrage, and we need to know why the President is treating Mr. Livingstone so very gentle.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that among those former Reagan and Bush officials whose confidential FBI background files have been pawed through by the Clinton White House is a distinguished Cincinnatian, Mr. Joseph W. Hagin. The search of Mr. Hagin's file is noteworthy not only because Joe is a well respected member of my community but also because the White House initially had said that it had only gotten through files from A through G. Mr. Hagin's last name, of course, begins with the letter ``H'' and I'm willing to bet that the FBI is good enough to have figured that out. Now Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has said that the White House never should condone an enemies list and that all of this vast intrusion into the privacy of former public servants is simply the result of administration incompetence. I sure hope that's the case. But I can understand why some of the victims are skeptical. After all this administration had turned the Justice Department over to a political crony named Webster Hubble who now stands convicted of various felonies. And the administration had done little to quell suspicion that the FBI was urged to target and harass Mr. Billy Dale. The President has apologized to Billy Dale. He also should apologize to Mr. Hagin. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we will try to take the President at his word on welfare reform. Only 3 weeks ago President Clinton endorsed the Wisconsin works plan which substitutes work and responsibility for dependence and despair. It was adopted by sweeping bipartisan majorities in the Wisconsin State Legislature. Yet Federal roadblocks still prevent that plan from going into effect. President Clinton said he endorsed the plan just a couple of weeks ago. He said we should get it done. Now we get hemming and hawing from the administration. In fact, some administration officials signaled that the President did not mean what he said. But maybe they are not being fair to their boss. The cynics point this out, after saying that he wanted to end welfare as we know it, remember that, the President vetoed welfare reform. Then he vetoed it again. The cynics say that we have to be a bit skeptical of the President's words. But heck with those cynics. Mr. Speaker, let us give the President what he says he wants and what the people of Wisconsin really do want. To quote the President, ``We should get it done.'' Let us overhaul the terrible welfare system that we have in this country and let us do it in Wisconsin for the folks there who want to overhaul the welfare system.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, 5 short years. That is the amount of time that is remaining in the Medicare trust fund before it goes completely bankrupt. The trust fund already has started to lose billions, and unless we make some needed changes, Medicare will be completely bankrupt within 5 years. So the situation is even worse than was predicted by the Clinton administration last year. Mr. Speaker, there are many, many people in my district who depend on Medicare and who expect to be around 5 years from now. My own parents are on Medicare. It would be an absolute outrage if political posturing and political games prevent us from saving a program that so many Americans depended upon. Just as politics ought to stop at the water's edge, politics when it comes to Medicare absolutely should stop in this House. Even President Clinton admitted all those attack ads about Republicans alleging cutting Medicare are absolutely not true. It is time that rather than everybody attacking everybody about who is cutting Medicare, Republicans and Democrats ought to work together to save Medicare.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, here is a quote from Tuesday's Washington Times editorial on welfare reform: Knowing the salience that welfare reform has with the electorate, the President desperately wants to be seen as leading the reform effort that he has actually been sabotaging. The Times is right. Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to, remember, end welfare as we know it. Of course he vetoed welfare reform twice. Bill Clinton has also dragged his feet on granting waivers to the States that would allow them to fix the welfare mess in those States. The White House has denied waivers to Illinois and Massachusetts and Wyoming. Those States waited up to 20 months to be notified of their denial. Just ridiculous. The States should not have to crawl to Washington on bended knee to get permission to do the right thing for their own people. When it comes to reforming welfare, despite talk about the end of the era of big government, Bill Clinton apparently still believes that big government knows best.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, this Congress has twice passed welfare reform legislation that emphasizes work and personal responsibility. President Clinton, who told America that he would ``end welfare as we know it,'' has, on both occasions, vetoed that legislation. Now he tells us once again that he's ready to keep his promise that he really is willing to reform welfare. Well, we'll see. We will soon give President Clinton another opportunity to put his money where his mouth is. We will make one more effort to send him a bill that will move millions of Americans from that cycle of dependency on big government to a life of productivity and responsibility for self and family. Madam Speaker, let's hope for the sake of generations of Americans caught in the welfare trap that the President isn't just pulling our leg once again. Let's hope that he'll finally agree to keep his oft- repeated campaign promise to ``end welfare as we know it.''

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend, fellow freshmen, and thoughtful colleague on the International Relations Committee the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback]. This amendment would prohibit the sharing of U.S. intelligence information with the United Nations or any of its affiliates unless the President certifies to Congress that the U.N. organization has implemented the proper CIA, Defense Department, and State Department procedures to ensure that U.S. intelligence sources and methods are protected. It is a good amendment. It was passed by both Houses earlier this year as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act--a bill that was unfortunately, and I believe wisely, vetoed by President Clinton. We can rectify some of the damage done by that veto if we adopt the Brownback amendment today. Mr. Chairman, I can see no logical reason why anyone would want to oppose this amendment. The United Nations is not known for its sympathy to American interests. And when sharing our intelligence data, we must be extremely careful. The Brownback amendment protects that data, protects our intelligence sources, and protects our intelligence methods. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on International Relations and the Subcommittee on Africa, I rise in strong support of this resolution congratulating the people of Sierra Leone on the success of the recent democratic multiparty elections. I want to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Houghton, who has introduced this legislation; also, the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee itself, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I would also like to extend commendations across the aisle to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, who has shown significant leadership in this area. Many people have worked very hard to bring this forward today. The March 15 democratic Presidential parliamentary elections marked an historic day in Sierra Leone. After nearly 30 years of one-party rule, civil war and military dictatorships, nearly 75 percent of the Sierra Leone citizenry, at great personal risk, went to the polls to cast their votes. Since that election, a cease-fire has been negotiated to end the fighting that has led to the deaths of more than 10,000 individuals and also left more than 4.5 million homeless. This resolution encourages the people of Sierra Leone to continue those negotiations and to work for a lasting peace. Mr. Speaker, when a nation, in the face of so much adversity, is able to take such a giant step forward toward democracy, it should be commended, and I am pleased to be able to join my colleagues in doing so. Again, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] for his work on this issue and I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 154, congratulating the people of Taiwan for holding the first free and fair democratic elections in Chinese history. And I want to congratulate my good friend from North Carolina, a fellow member of the freshman class, David Funderburk, for his work in bringing the bill to the floor. I also want to thank Chairman Gilman for his leadership on this issue. I work closely with the Taiwanese-American community in Cincinnati, and I can tell you what a glorious day it was for those great people on March 23 when, for the first time in 4,000 years of Chinese history, citizens went to the polls to elect a President. I not only want to congratulate those on Taiwan for this historic vote but those of Taiwanese heritage right here in the United States--like my own constituents, Dr. C.T. Lee and Dr. Mark Tsuang--who worked so long and hard to make such a dream a reality. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we pass this resolution during the week of President Lee's inauguration as Taiwan's first democratically elected President. And I again thank Congressman Funderburk and Chairman Gilman for making the legislation possible.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the President is talking tough on welfare reform again. Remember, this is the President, who as a candidate, promised to ``end welfare as we know it.'' But when this Congress presented him with legislation that truly would end welfare as we know it, Mr. Clinton quickly vetoed it. When Congress once again sent him welfare reform he vetoed it again. Now his pollsters have apparently told him that it's time to change course again, or, at least appear to change course. He's once again saying the he supports welfare reform. Unfortunately, what he's actually proposed is not even a pale copy of meaningful reform. Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap, Candidate Bill Clinton made welfare reform a centerpiece of his campaign for the Presidency. It's time for him to keep his word. It's time to stop the political posturing. It's time for him to sign a real welfare reform bill.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, every now and then, I like to thumb through my copy of ``Putting People First'' then-candidate Bill Clinton's book of promises to the American people. And I couldn't help but notice when I last picked it up that the centerpiece of the Clinton campaign was a middle-class tax cut. Let me read a little bit from the section entitled ``Rewarding Work and Families'' middle-class taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income tax rate.'' That was candidate Clinton speaking. Well, candidate Clinton became President Clinton and that one-time champion of the middle-class soon began singing an altogether different tune. This Congress passed a middle-class tax cut; 89 percent of that tax cut would go to families earning under $75,000 per year. President Clinton said no and vetoed it. He called it a tax cut for the rich. Mr. Speaker, as President Clinton gears up to become candidate Clinton again, I think the American people might want to join me in asking him. ``Mr. President, whatever happened to that middle-class tax cut?''

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today, under the leadership of my good friends, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent], a bipartisan coalition will introduce the American Community Renewal Act of 1996. The bill reflects a critically important understanding that government must stop being the enemy of the family. Nowhere has the destructive power of the arrogant Federal bureaucracy caused greater harm than in our heavily urban areas, such as my district in Cincinnati. The Federal Government cannot be a substitute for strong families and vibrant neighborhoods. Instead, we must work to unleash the creative energies and the talents of all Americans, including especially those Americans least equipped to overcome government-erected barriers to economic success. The Community Renewal Act will provide parents of needy children greater choice in education. It will recognize that religious groups can be valuable colleagues in arms in the war against drugs, and it will help to promote individual entrepreneurship in areas where government heretofore has smothered it. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the introduction of the legislation and encourage its adoption.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week President Clinton finally admitted what most of us have known for quite some time now: Congress is not cutting Medicare. In fact, our effort has been to save Medicare from bankruptcy. When reporters asked the President about those deliberately false television ads that portray Republicans as heartless souls who are allegedly slashing Medicare and Medicaid, he got visibly upset. He acknowledged that the ads are not accurate. He blamed his misstatements on the press. And he said he really liked to be truthful, but he just cannot do it in a 27-second ad. Very interesting, very revealing, and, quite frankly, very sad. Mr. Speaker, it was reported last month that the Medicare trust fund has lost $4.3 billion already this year. The President knows that something must be done, and now he has finally come clean. If he really is committed to start telling the truth about Medicare, he ought to work with us to save Medicare for this generation and for future generations.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, one of the best and most persuasive advocates of a fairer, simpler Tax Code is my good friend, former colleague on the Cincinnati City Council, and present treasurer of the State of Ohio, Ken Blackwell. Today, I would like to include in the Congressional Record an op-ed article written by Mr. Blackwell that appeared in the April 16, edition of the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Blackwell, who has served as a member of the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform, chaired by former Congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, makes a very strong case on behalf of a Tax Code that should be so simple that anyone can figure it out. He notes the exorbitant costs incurred by individuals and businesses in complying with the maze of regulations in the Federal Tax Code. Ken Blackwell calls filing our tax returns ``one of life's most nerve-wracking, gut-wrenching and mind-numbing chores.'' Millions of Americans agree. I commend the article to my colleagues, and I commend Ken Blackwell for his continuing service to our Nation. [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 16, 1996] There's Nothing EZ About IRS Forms (By J. Kenneth Blackwell) The message in that letter should be a loud wake-up call for the government. The American people, who experienced the misery of Tax Day yesterday, think our current tax system is far too complex and confusing. It is choking the ability of businesses and families to grow and prosper. It is time to uproot the current disgraceful system and replace it with a clear, simple tax code. Mr. Sabus was one of thousands of people who sent letters to the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform, chaired by Jack Kemp. The commission, on which we both served, came up with six principles that should guide the national debate on tax reform. One of those principles is that the new tax code should be so simple that anyone can figure it out. Unfortunately, that guideline has been all but ignored by pundits and reporters who've been debating the merits of getting rid of the home-mortgage deduction and other aspects of the flat tax. The point that they are missing is that much of the public's disgust with the current income tax is caused by its complexity. The cost of compliance is astronomical. The Tax Foundation estimates that in 1994 businesses spent more than 3.6 billion hours, and individuals spent more than 1.8 billion hours, in preparing tax returns. That equates to approximately three million people working full time 12 months a year just to comply with the tax laws! The total annual cost of tax compliance is $192 billion--an amount equivalent to General Motors' entire output for 1994. There are other costs that are not included in the Tax Foundation's numbers. One of these is the cost of dealing with an audit or some other contact with the IRS. In 1990, the IRS conducted 1.2 million audits, and sent 4.9 million computer-generated notices to taxpayers regarding their returns or payments. The IRS filed 1.1 million liens and 2.6 million levies, and penalized a third of all employers for payroll tax deposit errors. Needless to say, taxpayers spent a considerable number of hours in these contacts with the IRS in addition to the time they spent preparing their tax returns. Why does it take so much time and energy to comply with the federal income-tax laws? Consider the sheer size of the tax code and regulations and the number of times changes that occur. From 1954 to 1994, the number of words in the sections of the Internal Revenue Code relating just to income taxes increased to more than 800,000 from less than 200,000. And there were constant amendments to the tax code. Every amendment requires new forms, new instructions, new record keeping and new calculations. Who can understand all of this? Certainly not the average family or small business. Not even professional tax preparers. Money magazine's annual survey of return preparers suggests that as few as 10% of the professional preparers can come within 10% of the correct tax when asked to complete a return for an individual taxpayer with moderately complicated facts. The tax code is so complicated that the IRS itself, according to a 1987 General Accounting Office survey, gives taxpayers the wrong information 47% of the time. Critics of tax reform frequently suggest that the tax law is not that complicated because most individual taxpayers file the simplest returns, a Form 1040EZ or a Form 1040A. Unfortunately, even the simplest returns are not that simple. The IRS notes proudly that it should take taxpayers ``only'' two hours and 42 minutes to complete the 1040EZ. Why does it take so long to fill out a form that is just a little bigger than a postcard? The instructions for the 1040EZ are 36 pages long! And the instructions for the Form 1040A are 79 pages. Furthermore, although taxpayers may end up filing a Form 1040EZ, many are still likely to keep (or try to keep) the records that would be necessary were they to file a longer form. For example, they may keep records of charitable contributions, mortgage interest, child care expenses, medical expenses, state and local taxes, tax return preparation fees, and work-related expenses such as union dues or professional association fees. The problems with filling out tax returns are far more serious for businesses than for individuals. Each business must deal not only with the burdens of determining its tax liability, but also function as a record keeper and private tax collector for the IRS. Businesses must send the IRS (with copies to the taxpayer by first class mail) more than a billion reports annually. While this information is essential for our tax system to function, we must be cognizant of the costs imposed on businesses by such mandates. As we said in the tax commission's report, filing tax returns will never be anyone's favorite pastime, but neither should it be what it has become: one of life's most nerve- wracking, gut-wrenching and mind-numbing chores. The current tax code is exceedingly expensive to comply with, increasingly difficult to enforce and oftentimes impossible to understand. Long ago the authors of the Federalist Papers warned, ``It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.'' A simpler tax system will let Americans get a handle on their taxes, a grip on their government and a hold of their future.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Finally, Mr. Speaker, finally. Today finally is the day that the average American can stop working for the Government and finally start working for his or her family. For the average working American, every dime from every working hour of every working day from January 1st until today has been devoted entirely to paying taxes to the Government. Today, tax freedom day, finally arrives, but only after the Government has taken a bigger piece than ever before out of the hide of the taxpaying citizen. We need to stop bilking the taxpayers and we need to let families keep more of what they earn. Those insiders who defend the current tax system and the huge burden that it imposes on working families practice cruelty in the name of compassion. Those who deny working parents tax relief while shouting tax cuts for the rich are practicing distortion in the service of big government. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. On this tax freedom day, let us pledge that never again will the Government take so much time out of the lives of its citizens. Instead of vetoing tax relief, let us veto some taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill offered by my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Chrysler. As a member of the Subcommittee on Crime, I can tell my colleagues that the gentleman from Michigan has done just outstanding work in putting this bill together and in shepherding it through the legislative process. I would also like to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for their leadership in this bill. Tough punishment deters crime, and we need to be tougher with the criminal scum who prey upon the most vulnerable members of our society, our children and our senior citizens. In passing this bill, Congress will be doing that it is supposed to do under the Constitution, setting policy. We should not blindly delegate that responsibility. It is our job as policymakers to direct the Sentencing Commission when we think the guidelines need improvement. They need improvement, Mr. Chairman, to provide greater protection for children and the elderly, and therefore I strongly urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.