Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, when I go back to Cincinnati every weekend, I get a chance to talk to a lot of working folks. It's amazing how many of them ask me this question: ``Whatever happened to that middle-class tax cut my family was supposed to get this year? Didn't President Clinton promise us some relief?'' In fact, during his campaign, Mr. Clinton did indeed promise tax relief. Let me quote from his book, ``Putting People First'': ``Middle- class taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income tax rate.'' So, whatever happened to that middle-class tax break? Well, somehow, our President forgot all about it, and instead, gave the American people something else; the largest tax increase in peacetime history including a hike in gasoline taxes. The only choice we got was between higher gas prices and not driving at all. Then, when the new Republican Congress did enact a $500 per child tax credit for working families, President Clinton killed it with his veto pen, calling it a tax cut for the rich. Mr. President, let's work together to give the American people tax relief.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I once again return to the point I have been making since I got here, and that is that working families in this country are taxed far, far too much. Working families are being ripped off by the Federal Government and by the special interests that demand more and more money and higher and higher taxes. So I am glad to hear the rumors that the President may at least be willing to roll back the ill-conceived gas tax that he imposed a couple of years back. That gas tax was part of the biggest tax increase in history, a tax increase that even the President later admitted was a mistake. The President and the old Congress thought that higher taxes would fuel the economy, but a lot of working families are just about running on empty. Taxes are too high. Let us quit siphoning an extra 50, or 60 or 70 cents out of the pockets of American citizens each time they fill up their gas tanks. Let us agree right now, in a bipartisan way, to repeal this ridiculous regressive gas tax and ensure Americans get more mileage out of their own paychecks. It is time to cut taxes and get the lead out.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the effort to override President Clinton's ill-advised veto of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. It is time to end the foreign aid ripoffs, and this legislation is a good start. I want to take a moment to applaud the hard work and tremendous leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. Chairman Gilman and the Committee on International Relations' staff have spent countless hours putting together a truly historic piece of foreign policy legislation, only to have it vetoed by a President who prefers the status quo. From the time our committee began deliberations last year, the Clinton administration stood in the way. In fact, top White House lobbyists promised to and I quote, ``delay, obfuscate and derail any effort to consolidate outmoded foreign policy bureaucracies and reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars used for foreign aid.'' They tried but had failed. Congress passed the bill, but the liberal foreign policy establishment had the last word. The President vetoed the legislation saying that our money levels, quote, ``fall unacceptably below the level of foreign aid'' he wants. Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at just what the President vetoed: a bill that would drastically reduce waste in our foreign affairs bureaucracies, that would fully fund our international war on drugs, that would assist Chinese women fleeing coercive abortion policies. that would finally apply McBride fair employment practices to Northern Ireland, and that would support our longtime friends and allies in Taiwan. Why did President Clinton veto this bill? Too many reforms, too little bureaucracy, too few tax dollars going to foreign aid. So much for the President who recently told us that the era of big government is over. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 is a good bill. It would strengthen America's role in foreign affairs, and it would provide much needed relief to the American taxpayer. Let us say no to the status quo, no to the ripoffs. Override the Clinton veto.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the front page of this morning's Cincinnati Enquirer in my district. It says, ``Losses Hit Medicare Trust Fund. $4.2 Billion Shortfall Growing.'' The article quotes a special assistant to President Clinton, who says the new numbers indicate the need to move forward, balance the budget and enact some changes in Medicare that will strengthen the trust fund. Well, no kidding. This from the same administration that for the last year has been opposing every effort to do just that. Now that President Clinton's own team that has belatedly figured out that the Medicare trust fund is going bankrupt, perhaps the President is ready to abandon his campaign rhetoric finally and join those of us in Congress who have been working to save Medicare for this generation and for future generations of American citizens. Maybe it will stop the shameless ``medicare'' campaign and we can work together to save Medicare.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this is the week that we are reminded by the April 15 filing deadline just how oppressive the Federal tax burden is in this country. But Tax Freedom Day, the day on which the average working person gets to stop working for the Government and begin working for themselves and their families, does not come until May 7 of this year, the latest date ever. Working people in this country are being abused and ripped off by our Government. If any taxpayer has the audacity to complain about the ripoffs, he or she is immediately labeled as a member of the so-called greedy rich. The Government takes money out of the pockets of working people so it can subsidize big corporations to advertise their products overseas. You do not like it? I guess you must be a member of the greedy rich. The Government takes money out of the pockets of working people to subsidize big agribusiness and inflate the cost of sugar, peanuts, and cotton. You do not like it? You must be a member of the greedy rich. The Government takes money out of the pockets of my people in Cincinnati, money that should be going to educate their own kids, and the Government uses that money to pay a bunch of bureaucrats here in Washington to write manuals about school uniforms. You do not like it? I guess you must be a member of the greedy rich. Then the President vetoes a bill to give tax relief to working people. Mr. Speaker, it is time to cut taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am unapologetically pro-life. Recently we were joined by a number of our pro-choice colleagues in voting to outlaw partial birth abortions. Those folks also believed the procedure to be violent and gruesome and in no way consistent with their views that some abortions ought to be legal. President Clinton, on the other hand, who has often said that he personally opposes abortion, says that he believes abortion ought to be legal but rare. In this particular instance I think he has finally shown his true colors. He has reached out to the most radical of the pro-abortion lobby by vetoing the partial birth abortion bill. The veto was a slap in the face to all of those who respect human life. The President has shown once and for all that he favors abortion on demand, even in the final weeks of pregnancy, and that is a tragically extreme position. I would remind my colleagues that the partial birth abortion ban was supported by 288 Members of this body, both Republicans and Democrats. Most thoughtful legislators did not consider the bill to be controversial and agreed it was something long overdue, a prohibition on a particularly grotesque and inhumane practice, yet the President did not see it that way. Let us recap for a moment what it is we are talking about here. A partial birth abortion is performed by using forceps to pull a living baby, feet first, through the birth canal until the baby's body is exposed, leaving the head just within the uterus. The abortionist then forces surgical scissors into the base of the skull, creating an incision through which he then inserts a suction tube to evacuate the brain tissue from the baby. This causes the skull to collapse, allowing the baby to be pulled from the birth canal. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act would outlaw such abortions. The President, who says that abortions should be rare, says that there is no question this is a gruesome procedure. The President says that abortions should be rare, but he vetoed this particular legislation. I think that was outrageous. Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing for the President, however, he has been consistent. He says one thing and then does another. He promised to end welfare as we know it. He vetoed welfare reform. He promised the middle-class tax cut and then he vetoed the middle-class tax cut that was passed by this Congress. He said that abortion should be rare, but his record shows that he supports abortions on demand at any time for any reason. I would agree with Robert Casey, the former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, who said President Clinton says he wants abortions to be safe, legal, and rare, but he has helped make it safe, legal, and everywhere. Yesterday Cleveland Bishop Anthony Pilla, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, joined by eight American cardinals, sent an extremely thoughtful, strongly worded letter to President Clinton in response to the President's veto, and I would like to quote from that letter at this time. In the letter the bishop stated as follows: Your veto of this bill is beyond comprehension for those who hold human life sacred. It will ensure the continued use of the most heinous act to kill a tiny infant just seconds from taking his or her first breath outside the womb. And the letter goes on: At the veto ceremony, you told the American people that you had no choice but to veto the bill. Mr. President, you and you alone have a choice of whether or not to allow children almost completely born to be killed brutally in partial birth abortions. Members of both Houses of Congress made their choice. They said no to partial birth abortions. Your choice was to say yes and to allow this killing more akin to infanticide than abortion to continue. That is what the Catholic bishops had to say to the President of the United States. It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed and saddened by President Clinton's unconscionable veto of the partial birth abortion ban. I think my sentiments are shared by many, including a large number of people who consider themselves to be pro-choice, and I cannot stress in strong enough terms my hope that this Congress when it is given the opportunity will vote to override the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, we cast hundreds of votes in this body every year. This vote will not be forgotten and we hope that we override this terrible veto the President made.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his thoughts on taxation. He also has been a true leader around here in trying to cut the tax burden on American working people in this country. In summarizing where we have been tonight, I would just like to make a couple of points here. Something that we passed today that I think was a very good move, something in the right direction, was something called the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. And in essence what that does is, if you call the IRS right now, and the IRS gives you bad information, you are responsible for penalties and interest, even though the IRS gave you bad information. That sounds ridiculous. It is ludicrous, but that has been the law. We passed, however, today a law which basically said that if the IRS gives you bad information, then you cannot be held responsible for interest and penalties due to bad information from the IRS. I think that is a step in the right direction. Congressman Jim Traficant, who is a Democrat from Ohio, my State, I think has--I am cosponsor of something I think is a very good piece of legislation. It basically would put the burden of proof on the IRS rather than on the taxpayer. Right now it is supposed to be you are innocent until proven guilty. But with the IRS, basically you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent. This takes the burden off the taxpayer and puts it on the IRS where it ought to be. Something else that I found kind of interesting in preparing for this issue this evening was the fact that we have got 6,000 border patrol people in this country, 6,000 people on the border patrol to protect our borders. We have got 24,000 employees of the FBI, and we know all the good things that the FBI does for our Nation. So that is 30,000 employees with border patrol and the FBI. With the IRS, the IRS has 111,000 employees, almost four times the number of employees that we have in those other two departments. It really shows you what our government's priorities have been. I think we need to change those priorities. Another thing that is interesting, as we mentioned, April 15 was just yesterday, taxpayers all across this Nation were trying to figure out how much they owed to make sure that they paid what they owed; 1.7 billion hours were spent by taxpayers figuring their taxes and the next figure is really shocking, $140 billion was spent by taxpayers for attorneys and accountants to figure out what their taxes were, time basically wasted figuring out taxes, $140 billion. I would argue that that time could be much more productively spent in many other ways. I had a town meeting, many of the other Members that spoke here this evening mentioned they had town meetings on the weekend. I had a town meeting in my district. I represent the 1st district of Ohio, which is basically most of the city of Cincinnati and some of the western suburban communities. We had about 125 people at the town meeting. I started out with a question at the beginning: How many people here feel that taxes in this country are relatively low and perhaps we could raise them to balance the budget or do more government programs, whatever? Not one hand went up. Then I asked, how many people feel that taxes are about right in this country? I expected we might get a few hands. We did not get one hand that said that taxes are anything near what they ought to be. Then I asked, how many people feel that we are overtaxed in this country, we need tax relief? And every single hand in that room went up. These are just regular citizens from my community, the Cincinnati area, and that is probably true all across this Nation. We had a couple of groups that were represented there, a group called TEE. We have had some grass roots groups that just formed in the community a few years ago. TEE is one. It is Taxed Enough Already. Brenda Kuhn is the founder of that organization. We have the True Blue Patriots, Pat Cooksey, founder of that organization that was there, and also Tom Brinkman, who is the treasurer of a group called CATS, Citizens Against Taxes and Spending. So we have actually in my community, in reaction to this high level of taxes, we have actually had regular men and women, average working people form groups to try to petition their government to get off their backs, give them some tax relief. And I think it is time that we did that. I want to thank all the Members of the House who came here this evening to discuss and participate in this topic which could not be more timely about tax relief. I would like to say finally that I think it is time that we work together, Democrats and Republicans, and, yes, the President of the United States, we should all work together to give tax relief to the American people. It is time we get the job done. Let us get working on it. Let us relieve the American people of the huge tax burden that this government has placed on their backs. Thank you very much for participating this evening.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Reclaiming my time, I would like to at this time recognize, introduce the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford], a very good friend. I also want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina on a recent score he received from one of the groups that ranks Members of Congress, and that is the National Taxpayers' Union. And what they do is they go through a very large number of votes and keep track of which Members are really serious about cutting spending and cutting taxes. They put all the votes together, and of the 435 Members of the House, this gentleman was tied for No. 4, I believe, and of the freshman class, you were tied with lead, coincidently with myself. But in any event, I want to thank the gentleman and commend you on that particular score, and let us keep cutting taxes and reducing the rate of spending in some areas and cutting spending in other areas. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the topic of our special order this evening is taxes, and periodically, we will likely be joined by some other principally freshman Members of this House. One of the things that we all share is that we all believe very firmly that taxes are just far too high in this country. The American public is overtaxed, and our Government overspends, and we have to do something about that. I am 43 years old, and back when I was born, and I was born in the early 1950's, during that period of time the average American family in this country sent about 5 percent, 3 to 5 percent to Washington in the form of taxes. Here we are 40 years later, and that has gone from 5 percent up to about 25 percent that Americans send to Washington to cover our Federal Government's spending. But that is not the whole picture. It is even worse than that. When you add State taxes, local taxes, city taxes, county taxes, township taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, all the other taxes that we pay as Americans, the average American family now spends about 40 percent, 40 percent of what it earns in the form of taxes. Another way to look at that 40 percent figure is that if you work Monday through Friday, you are working Monday and Tuesday for the Government and only Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are you able to support your family on the money that you earned. That is far too high, far too much of a bite out of the taxpayers of this country coming to the Government. Another way to look at it is if you work an 8-hour day, about 3 of those hours are worked for the Government. That is just ridiculous. I am sure that our Founding Fathers and founding mothers never envisioned anything like the burden of taxation that we now have on the people of this Nation. Wages have gone up somewhat. If we look since 1989, for example, wages have increased somewhat. However, when we look at the tax burden, the fact that taxes have gone up, we are at best in this country treading water. We are trying to stay even. But we are really losing out on the American dream. Our parents, I know my parents, envisioned their children doing better than they did. We all want to advance some in life. The problem is right now because taxes at all levels of Government, particularly at the Federal level of Government, have gone up and up and up, the American dream is being destroyed. Because we are overtaxed, we cannot keep enough of our own money to support our families, and that absolutely has to change. A group called the Tax Foundation, for example, calculates that in this country we right now pay more in taxes than we do for food, clothing, or housing, shelter, medical costs. Think of that. Food, clothing, health care, housing, all those things, we are spending less for that than we are for taxes. That shows again that we are just overtaxed in this country. At this time I have been joined by several of my colleagues. I will pick up here in a few minutes but I would like to, I believe, start with the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] since he was here first, and I will at this point yield to a good friend of mine from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for sharing his thoughts on taxation. You mentioned the disparity, the discrepancy between the two parties in this House and I do not think it could have been plainer than as recently as yesterday. What we attempted to do in essence was to make it tougher, make it harder for the Government to raise income taxes on the American people. Right now we can do it with a simple majority of Congress, taxes can be raised on the American public and assuming that the President signs the bill. What the Republicans in this House tried to do was to make it tougher, to go up to two-thirds. We tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would require two-thirds of this House and then two- thirds of the Senate in order to raise taxes on the American public.

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I think that is absolutely correct. I firmly believe that we should make it tougher for Congress to ever raise taxes again. Unfortunately, since it is a constitutional amendment, we needed two- thirds of this House to pass it. Some 234 Members of this body voted for it, 177 voted against it. Almost every Republican, there were only 17, I believe, Republicans voted against it. And 200-plus Republicans voted for the constitutional amendment. There were a relatively small number of Democrats who joined us on this. But there are many people in this House, and even though we did not get it this time, we are going to keep coming back, because we should definitely make it tougher for this Congress ever to raise taxes on the American people again. At this time, I would like to yield to one of the most articulate and truly one of the leaders of the freshman class, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. J.D. Hayworth.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman, and reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from South Carolina makes many, many very good points. I cannot touch on all of them, but I think you cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip or only so much is right on the mark. That has been one of the problems with the government, particularly the Federal Government, is they thought there was just an unlimited ability to squeeze blood out of the American public. The limit for taxes, just unlimited, just keep raising them, and we have gone far beyond a level which is appropriate in this country. This Congress, particularly on this side of the aisle, we have made some effort. Before yielding to the gentlewoman from California, I want to touch on a couple of things that we have done in this Congress thus far to give the American people a break, to reduce the level of taxation on particularly working people in this country. For example, right now a married couple in this country is penalized for being married. We wanted to eliminate the marriage penalty, and passed appropriate legislation here in Congress to do that. Unfortunately, down at the White House it was vetoed. This is unfortunate because we should not penalize married people. We should encourage people to be married in this country. Capital gains relief is another example of tax relief that we tried to pass this year in this house. Capital gains I think is something that is very important, because some people think capital gains is just for rich people. Seventy-three percent of the people who benefit from capital gains relief earn less than $75,000. Many senior citizens in their pension plans and their IRA's and other things benefit from relief. Most importantly, capital gains relief means that the economy will thrive more. It will mean more jobs for Americans, more entry level jobs for teenager, for example, so we need capital gains relief in this country. The adoption tax credit is something we passed here. The President, by the way, vetoed the capital gains relief. The adoption credit, we wanted to give a $500 tax credit to people in this country for adopting a child. There are many diverse views in this House about the issue of abortion, a controversial issue. Some are pro-life, some pro-choice, but I think we all agree that we want to reduce the number of abortions, and the $500 tax credit or, excuse me, $500 adoption credit would encourage people to adopt children. We wanted to give seniors in this country relief. Right now a senior citizen, once they earn about $11,000 they start losing their Social Security Benefits. That does not seem fair. Seniors all over this country have paid into Social Security all their lives. Then they retire, want to make a little bit of money, and they start losing their Social Security benefits. So what we did is, we passed in this House relief which allowed seniors to go from $11,000 to earning up to about $35,000 over a 7-year period. It was a gradual increase in the amount that could be earned before they started to lose their Social Security benefits. Fortunately, that was one of the things that the President did not veto, so that was passed, and I am very pleased about that. The final thing I wanted to mention that we have done in this Congress thus far is, we wanted to give a $500 tax credit for families who have children. So if you have two children, that would be a thousand dollar tax credit, not a deduction but a credit. When you are raising kids, everybody knows it is an extra burden, and we should give relief to families across this country. Now, again, 89 percent of the people that would have benefited from this would have been people who made less than $75,000, but the President vetoed it. What we heard was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich. These things were not tax cuts for the rich, they were tax cuts for hard-working American citizens, and it is time we give the American public tax relief. I think that is what we are all about. At this time I would like to yield to a good friend from California, a lady who has made many courageous votes in this House thus far in her career, the gentlewoman from California, Andrea Seastrand.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlewoman from California. I just want to compliment the gentlewoman on the may votes that she has taken to give tax relief to the American people. We need to keep fighting this battle. I now would like to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], a gentleman who has been one of the true leaders in the freshman class this year and in fact in the Congress as a whole.

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Kansas. I particularly think it is very interesting the figure you used about 8 billion forms and instructions that go out to taxpayers all over this country. I think one of the interesting figures that I had seen recently was to put together those forms, we have to cut down 293,000 trees just to put together these forms that we send out to the American public and I personally think that we ought to leave a lot more of these trees standing and cut down the Tax Code substantially. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday millions and millions of Americans paid their taxes all across this country. Unfortunately, most of them found that the Government was taking more and more of their hard-earned dollars, and they were keeping less and less to support their families. The tax burden on the average American family is outrageous. The total tax bill for an average family is almost 40 percent. Most Americans will spend more on taxes than they do on food, shelter, clothing, health care combined. Think of that; it is unbelievable. Yesterday, during debate, one of the participants on the other side noted that taxes are what we pay for civilization. Now, I am mystified as to where that bit of wisdom was gleaned. There is no excuse for a 40-percent tax rate on middle-income families. That is not civilization; that is something close to tyranny. The American people have every right to be upset about high taxes, and we have an obligation to try and change tax and spend Washington. It is time we give tax relief to the American people, and we ought to do it right now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is April 15, tax day. Today is the day that millions of Americans, as they struggle to file their tax forms all across this country on time, are reminded just how much they are being fleeced by the Federal Government. Every time taxes go up, the working people of this Nation get hurt. But we will have an opportunity later this evening to help taxpayers, to put the brakes on the never-ending cycle of taxing and spending by voting for a constitutional amendment to prevent any Federal tax increase that does not have at least two-thirds of Congress supporting it. Those of us who have cosponsored this amendment have a very simple objective: We want to make it harder for the Federal Government to take hard-earned dollars out of the pockets of working American families. For every 8 hours an American works, more than 3 hours go to pay taxes. If you work 5 days, Monday and Tuesday go to the Government; only Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday go to support your family. Well, enough is enough. This has to stop, Mr. Speaker. It is time to give the American taxpayers a break. Let us do it today.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment this morning to pay tribute to the 1996 Ohio State Division I high school basketball champions, the LaSalle Lancers of Cincinnati, OH. After finishing in last place in their league during the regular season, LaSalle refused to give up. The team confounded the experts by going all the way to Columbus, knocking off powerhouse Toledo St. John's in the State championship game on Saturday night and winning the entire State championship. I will admit to some personal bias in this instance. LaSalle High School is not only in my congressional district, it is my alma mater. In fact, I got my start in politics at LaSalle running for student council office. I realize some people probably still hold LaSalle responsible for getting my political career off the ground, but that is life. Coach Fleming and Coach Scott Tillett, about whom a wonderful front page article appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer yesterday, and all of the fine young men that were on the team at LaSalle, they brought so much glory to our hometown, they certainly are entitled to our tribute. I want to thank the LaSalle Lancers and congratulate them for winning the State championship this year. Way to go, Lancers.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today we will again vote on whether or not it should be lawful for an abortionist to kill a baby that already has been partially delivered in circumstances where the mother's life is not at risk. Remember, the doctor must grasp two kicking, healthy legs to secure the baby so that he can insert into the child's skull a scissor-like device that causes the brain to collapse, and it kills the child. Even those who advocate this type of abortion shudder to describe it. Only the most extreme ideologue could favor such a gruesome procedure where the mother's life is not in jeopardy. This whole debate is over whether thinking, feeling, healthy little babies who are within weeks or sometimes even days of natural delivery should be robbed of the opportunity to breathe the same air you and I share. These babies, only inches away from being fully born, are no different from mildly premature babies. They deserve to live. I celebrate the fact that today we will take a step in representing those who cannot represent themselves by passing the partial birth abortion bill, and I strongly, strongly urge Members to vote for its passage.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Chrysler amendment, because I deeply value the fundamental character of this Nation as a land of hope and opportunity and because I cherish our unique American heritage as a country of immigrants, united by shared values, a strong work ethic, and a commitment to freedom. Let us not tarnish that heritage or ignore our greatest strength, which is our people. Our legal immigration system doubtless could use reform, and other titles of this bill will make some useful changes, but I do not believe the rush to do something about the very real problems of illegal immigration should cloud our treatment of people who play by the rules and who come here legally and add to our human capital. Should we crack down on illegal immigration? Yes. Absolutely. Let us, for example, not let welfare be a magnet for illegal immigrants to come here, and let us beef up our border patrols. But legal immigration is a separate and distinct issue. Let us split the issues of legal and illegal immigration and let each be determined upon its merits. Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for American family values, and I urge support for the Chrysler amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the extremely distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. It is a real honor for me to be associated with the gentleman in this bipartisan effort. Despite all the tactical shifts, Mr. Chairman, there really are only two sides to this debate. There are some people, some very well- intentioned people, who believe that we need a national computerized system through which the Federal Government would specifically approve or disapprove every hiring decision that is made in this country. Then there are those of us, myself and the gentleman from Michigan included, who do not believe that such a system is appropriate. That is the issue. The Chabot-Conyers amendment would strike from the bill that section which asserts the Federal Government's power to sign off on new employment decisions as they are made. Now, because of massive opposition to this scheme, its proponents have decided to get a foot in the door by starting with an initial so- called voluntary pilot project. But the system that it establishes is neither really voluntary nor a simple pilot. I will expand upon that point in a minute. More importantly, we know where this program is designed to lead. The end goal is and always has been a national mandatory system by which the Federal Government would assert the power to sign off on the employment of every U.S. citizen. That was what was in the bill to start with, and that is what its proponents have said they want. In fact, some of them cannot even wait beyond today to ratchet up a level of coercion. The very next amendment with its very explicit employer mandate clearly shows where all this is headed. As former Senator Malcolm Wallop has written, he calls this ``One of the most intrusive government programs America has ever seen.'' The Wall Street Journal calls it odious. The Washington Times asks in editorializing against the system and for our amendment, ``Since when did Americans have to ask the government's permission to go to work?'' Now, even if the Government always worked perfectly, we would have huge philosophical objections to this procedure. But, as Senator Wallop says, ``Americans can spend eight months just trying to prove to the Social Security Administration that they are not dead.'' 1500 Mr. Chairman, here, remember, we are talking about citizen's ability to work, about their very livelihood. And no one has argued that errors will not be made, causing heartache for those citizens who lose their jobs. The L.A. Times reported just last month that anonymous sources within Social Security fear that, quote, 20 percent of legal workers might be turned down by the system when it is first implemented. Over time, that 270 percent error rate would fall to around 57 percent, officials estimate. Officially, Social Security now says that it, and I quote again, cannot predict the verification results for a pilot project. The Social Security Administration further states that in addition to attempted fraud, quote, nonmatches can occur for many reasons, including keying errors, missing information, erroneous information and failure of the individual to notify Social Security of legal name changes, et cetera. Indeed, a constituent of mine was in my office just yesterday on another issue and told me that he and his new bride have been trying for 4 months now to get Social Security to record her married name, and they still have not got it straightened out, although we are trying. The bill in fact explicitly contemplates errors that deprive American citizens of their jobs. Its answer? More litigation. Victims could sue the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That prospect should be cold comfort, either to somebody who has lost a long-sought job because of this program or to the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill. Well, at least this new Government program is voluntary, we are told. Not for the employees, it is not. Let me repeat. Employees, American citizens, have absolutely no choice whatsoever about whether they are covered under this section, nor is it truly voluntary for employers. To quote Senator Wallop again, the strong-arm incentive for the business owners to join the system is that they will be targeted for additional Federal enforcement if they choose not to participate. The Small Business Survival Committee says the system would create unprecedented employer liability. They oppose it, as do, for example, the Associated General Contractors, the National Retail Federation, and many, many others. As for this being a pilot, well, as Stuart Anderson notes, the covered States have a population in excess of 90 million Americans, about one-third of this country. Together, these so-called pilot States would be the 11th largest nation in the entire world. Mr. Chairman, this system is to be added on top of the burdensome I-9 document review requirements that started us down the road, down the path of making employers into basically Federal agents. Congress was assured in 1986 that that program would, quote, terminate the problem. Well, it has not. Remarkably, that program's very failure is advanced as a justification for proceeding further down that path. So this addition is proposed. Do my colleagues know what? It will not work, either. We will hear shortly from the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], and others that it cannot work unless it is explicitly made mandatory on employers. Even then employers who knowingly hire illegals simply call the 800 number. Moreover, others in this body argued that without a national ID, anyone could buy fake documents with corresponding numbers and cheat the system. So we know what is coming next, a national ID card in all likelihood. The bottom-line question, though, Mr. Chairman, is whether this Government of ours should be in the business of saying yea or nay whenever an American citizen takes a new job. I say no. So do the Catholic Conference, the ACLU, the National Center for Home Education, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Cato Institute, Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Christian Coalition, and virtually all the legal experts who have taken a look at this, including the American Bar Association. All these groups and others that I will try to mention later support the Chabot-Conyers amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what was designed as a coercive mandatory and permanent program now is being sold as voluntary and temporary. The principal argument in its favor apparently is it is not as bad as it could be. Well, we all know that government programs do not stay voluntary or temporary very long. This one is not voluntary to begin with, and as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform pointed out yesterday, income tax withholding was introduced as a temporary funding mechanism in World War II. The concept of American citizens having to obtain government working papers, or in the language of the bill, a confirmation code, in order to work, is antithetical to the principles I was sent here to support. But I ask my colleagues to think ahead 5 or 10 or 15 years from now and decide whether you want to look back and say yeah, I did vote to put that system into place, or no, I did the right thing. I voted to stop it when it could have been stopped. Please join me and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] in supporting this amendment, along with everyone from the Christian Coalition to the ACLU, to the ABA, and every business group that has taken a stand.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback]. (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)