Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thought my ears were playing tricks on me yesterday when I heard White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta say that this Congress is going to have to learn to do things the old-fashioned way. By that, he means, of course, business as ususal. Well, I had a chance to go back home to Cincinnati over the weekend. Unlike the President, I did not play golf, I did not consult with any high-priced pollsters. But I did have the opportunity to talk to the type of people, the regular folks back in fact in Cincinnati, who sent me here to Congress. They did not tell me to vote the old pork-barrel way, as Mr. Panetta encourages. They told me to stick to my guns, to do what I promised I would do, to keep working to balance the budget. During his campaign, candidate Bill Clinton promised to balance the budget in 5 years. Now that he is in the White House, he refuses to even discuss balancing it in 7 years. Still Mr. Speaker, the President should not underestimate the intelligence of the American taxpayers. They know the political gamesmanship when they see it, and they do not like it. They want us to balance the budget. Let us do it now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. ``Representative Joe Knollenberg''--and we all know Joe here--``Michigan Republican, tells the story of a Michigan woman named Jean English, who while going through the mail of her recently deceased brother found a bill for his last hospital stay. Her brother, who suffered a terminal illness, died only a few days after being admitted. ``The bill for the four-day period came to $368,511.09. All of it had been forwarded to Medicare for payment. Shocked by the expense, Mrs. English called the hospital for an explanation. What she got was a 14- page itemized statement. ``The greatest expense? A 7-hour stay in the emergency room, according to the bill, required $347,982.01 worth of supplies.'' Just think of that, just 7 hours, $347,000 worth of supplies. ``Well, after much hemming and hawing,'' says the Congressman, ``the [[Page H 12184]] hospital admitted that it had made a mistake. Oops. Instead of $347,982.01, the actual charge should have been $61.30. That is right, $61.30. An overcharge of $347,920.71.'' The problem was found. End of story? No. The errant bill had been sent to Medicare and paid by Medicare. That is right, they had paid the bill. That is just the tip of the iceberg. We have to find waste where it exists and stop that waste from happening but we do not have to cut anybody's Medicare at all. We want to save it so it is there for the seniors nowadays and for future generations.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I carry around here in my wallet an article that I clipped out of the newspaper. We verified this article. It is accurate. It is going to take me just a few seconds to read this. It is about Medicare, one of the problems with it.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Florida makes some very good points. Candidate Clinton was very different, unfortunately, from President Clinton. As the gentleman implied, candidate Clinton had said that he was going to end welfare as we know it. I agreed. I remember the commercial like it was on yesterday when he said that, and he made some very good points. I agreed with everything he said. We do need to change welfare, and that is something we are doing in our balanced budget this year. We really are changing welfare as we know it. Mr. Speaker, welfare has become, rather than temporary help for the truly needy, far too often a permanent way of life. It has been counterproductive. It has unfortunately hurt children all over this country. Candidate Clinton also said that he was going to give us a middle- class tax cut. I agreed with him completely that we needed to do that. Unfortunately, President Clinton gave us one of the largest tax increases in our history. What we did, this new Congress this year, we really did give the middle class a tax cut. Seventy-five percent of the tax cuts go to people who make less than $75,000. Mr. Speaker, I hear over and over here in this particular body from some of the folks on the other side of the aisle here that we are cutting Medicare, which we are not because we are increasing Medicare, to give tax cuts, supposedly, to the rich. When, in fact, as I said, the tax cuts predominately go to the middle class of this Nation where they should go. One final point I would like to make about something the President said during the campaign is he indicated he was going to be tough on the death penalty, tough on crime. In this bill that the President has just vetoed which increased the debt ceiling, there was also habeas corpus reform. What that means, basically, is the death penalty in this country, of which I am a strong believer. Eighty percent of the people in this country believe in the death penalty. But after conviction, we allow it to drag on. People are on death row for 15, 16, 20 years. We finally have legislation which reforms the death penalty in this country and cuts down the amount of time between the imposition of the sentence and actually carrying out the sentence. That was in the bill. The President said he was for it. Unfortunately, he vetoed that as well. Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that we were sent here for a reason. I believe we should try to work with the President, and I wish he would work with us for the betterment of all the people in this country. Again, as the gentleman from Arizona said, I think we should reach out to the President, just as the Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the majority leader, Bob Dole as we speak here now are apparently meeting at the White House with the President. I hope some good comes from that.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the President has a choice to make. He can help us balance the budget and save the country, or he can close the Government down. This is not brain surgery. The President has a choice. Unfortunately, I am concerned that for political reasons, the President will make the wrong choice. Yesterday, instead of asking to meet with Congress to try to figure out how to work this out, the President chose instead to meet with his Cabinet Members to figure out the logistics to shutting the Government down. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have passed a plan to balance the budget. The President, however, offered us no leadership, no plan, and no choice, and that is a real shame.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today's Wall Street Journal contains a shocking story about further abuse of government power. The Journal reports that the head of President Clinton's Department of Energy, Hazel O'Leary has hired a private investigating firm to poke into reporters who write about her. She's then had the private eyes create an enemies list of unfavorable reporters who report on her extravagant travel and the like. And she's billed this private investigation to the taxpayers at a cost of some $43,000, the paper reports. All this comes on top of Mrs. O'Leary's incredible travel junketing, also undertaken at great taxpayer expense. Mr. Speaker, if the Journal story is accurate the Secretary of Energy should not remain in office 1 more day, 1 more hour, not even 1 more minute. President Clinton should dismiss her immediately. This administration all too often makes excuses for officials who have gone bad. But the snooping and the cheating and the coverups have to stop. We cannot tolerate this sort of abuse of government power any longer.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California for his insightful remarks on this important issue. The gentleman from California mentions a scenario which I think is very similar, and that is American involvement in Lebanon, a different administration. Some years ago, but as the gentleman from California mentions, we went in there with good motivations, trying to keep peace, a peace which really did not exist. The mission really was not clear. There was no real exit policy out of there. We had a suicide bomber who went into the marine barracks and over 200 United States marines lost their lives. I think another situation which is somewhat analogous, more recently was in Somalia. We went into Somalia with the best of intentions, again, a different administration, to feed people, and then that humanitarian mission then turned into peacekeeping, and democracy- building, and putting ourselves in-between these warlords, and they ended up shooting at us. We had helicopters shot down, we had 18 Americans who lost their lives, we had an American who had his body dragged through the streets. We want to prevent that from happening again. That is why we are here tonight, and I want to thank all of those who took part in this special order here this evening.

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for giving his talk and his points this evening. He happens to be one of the more articulate Members of this body. I think he did a tremendous job. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], who serves on the Committee on International Relations with me, and has shown tremendous leadership on that committee. Many of us, particularly the freshmen on that committee, listen very well when this gentleman, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher from California, speaks.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his remarks this evening. I had mentioned earlier relative to the gentleman from the State of Washington [Mr. Metcalf], that he had spoken up at the New Federalist meeting this morning. And I just wanted to make the point that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] is the leader of that group, the head of that group, and has shown tremendous leadership in such issues as making sure we balance the budget, we stick to our guns and keep on top of things around here. I want to compliment him for that and his remarks here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for taking the time this evening to share his thoughts with us, and I think you certainly put those remarks very eloquently, and we thank you. You know, the one thing that keeps coming to mind to me in this whole situation is we have to remember we have got three groups of people that have essentially hated each other and fought with each other for hundreds of years in this area, and essentially what the President is suggesting is that we put our young American men and young American women in between these different groups who have been shooting at each other for all of these years. I think it is clear at some point that these people will turn their targets on these American troops. I think that is the last thing in the world we should do. I have also heard the argument from those few people in this House that agree with the President on this issue--and I have to stress that, the few--that we now have a volunteer Army and these are voluntary young men and young women who knew what they were getting into when they signed up, so it is not quite as bad when we put them in harm's way. I strenuously disagree with that line of thinking, with that argument. I think it is only in those circumstances where the United States interests, vital interests, are at risk that those troops should be put at risk. I have also heard the argument that since--yes, and I have heard a few of my Republican colleagues espouse this point of view--that, yes, you know, we should not have done it, but now that the President has committed troops or is about to commit troops, that the United States might somehow lose prestige around the world if we stopped him at this point. Again, I want to argue first of all that this is exactly the time to stop this President from making this very wrong move, because the troops are not there yet. It will be much more difficult once the troops are there, because then we are all going to rally around our troops and support them. This is the time to stop those young men and young women from losing their lives. I have heard it argued that the U.S. might lose prestige around the world if we do not stick behind the President on this issue. I would argue that there is a much greater risk of us losing prestige around the world if this thing turns into the bloody debacle that just might occur, and that we all are so concerned about and trying to prevent. At this time, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. CHABOT. I would like to thank and compliment the gentleman from Washington for his leadership on this issue. He spoke out very eloquently this morning at the New Federalist group, which is a number of very committed freshmen who keep an eye on making sure we balance the budget and making the necessary cuts in certain areas that are necessary to do that. He spoke up very eloquently as to why we should not put ground troops in Bosnia this morning, and then again at the Republican Conference, which is all Republican Members of Congress. The gentleman from Washington spoke up very eloquently there, as well, so I want to thank him for his leadership in this area and thank him for his comments this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her remarks. I agree with her sentiments exactly. It is interesting that that same Washington Post article that you mentioned here from Charles Krauthammer, I would like to read the last paragraph from this which I think is very good and right on point. He says: It is hard to think of a greater folly than trying to enforce a peace among unreconciled Balkan enemies. It is a folly that Clinton's fickle meanderings on Bosnia have backed us into, a folly that must be firmly rejected now before it is too late. That is that same article, and I think his words should be heeded. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his remarks. I think they are very insightful and I think he is right on point. I represent the First District of Ohio. It is basically the city of Cincinnati. We have gotten a fair number of phone calls and letters. I have not gotten the first phone call yet of anybody who thinks that we should put United States ground troops into Bosnia. Not one phone call have I received yet. I am going to yield to some of my fellow colleagues here in just a moment. I brought here a copy of an article which appeared in my hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer. I just wanted to read a couple of paragraphs from this particular article. The headline on this is ``No Way.'' ``Sending U.S. troops to Bosnia would be a disastrous blunder.'' ``It may throw a wet blanket on the United Nations' 50th birthday party, but someone besides Russian President Boris Yeltsin should ask some tough questions about the U.N. debacle in Bosnia.'' ``The echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Another war in which unsupported troops fight for unexplained goals in an ungrateful land. For all his recent rhetoric about rescuing NATO and performing a ``peacekeeping'' role, Clinton still has not offered a reason why one American life--much less 20,000--should be risked for a shameful paper ``peace'' that ratifies the rape and plunder of Bosnia.'' It goes on. It says, ``Sending U.S. troops into a flammable pit of ethnic hatred, where death has been a fact of life since 1992, will invite hostage taking and terrorism against our soldiers, to inflame American outrage against Clinton's policy. Somalia and the near loss of a U.S. flier in Bosnia should be fresh, painful reminders that it is sheer folly to gamble American blood in a game where our Nation has no cards to play. ``If that's not enough, Clinton can recall his own protests against Vietnam. ``Instead, he threatens to invoke his presidential war powers to send troops, even if Congress balks,'' and it goes on. Clearly a very strong message from my hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, that we ought to stay out of Bosnia. I agree completely. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a very important issue this evening, that being the President's plan to put United States troops into Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, before we get into that, I would like to yield several minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] to respond to some of the things that we have heard here this evening from the other side. responding to democratic rhetoric

Mr. CHABOT. I continue to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the purpose of this special order tonight was to take some time to discuss the President's plan where he is considering putting United States troops on the ground in Bosnia as part of a proposed peace package. Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that this could be one of the most serious foreign policy blunders in memory. This House sent a very clear message to the White House within the past couple of weeks stating very clearly that it is our opinion that no troops should be sent into Bosnia on the ground without the President first coming to Congress and making his case to Congress and to the American people. He clearly has not done that to date. This was a bipartisan vote. Three hundred fifteen Members of this House voted this way, versus 103 who supported the President on this particular effort. Half of the President's own party in this body voted that way. So it was a very strong message. At least to date the President apparently has chosen to disregard this very clear message from Congress. That vote was only a first step. We are now considering taking much stronger action which we are going to discuss here this evening in which we feel that it may perhaps be the appropriate action for us to tell the President up front that we are not going to funds any venture on putting United States ground troops into Bosnia. I spoke with Vice President Gore several weeks ago in this building along with several other Members of Congress. One of the things I asked the Vice President at that time is did they have any casualty estimates, how many casualties, how many Americans did they project will lose their lives if we put ground troops into Bosnia. They had no answer. They are looking into it. We have not heard word one back from the administration on this yet. There are many things which have not been addressed yet by the administration. The American people are not in favor of this effort. These are the types of things that we are going to be discussing here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to hear what the gentleman has to say.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, many of us promised the people back home that when we got to Washington, we would work hard to cut the Federal spending here in Washington, lower taxes for the middle class, and overhaul welfare. Come to think about it, President Clinton campaigned on much the same platform. The difference is, we delivered on our end of the bargain by adopting those very reforms. The President, on the other hand, has had second thoughts, and third thoughts. He promised to end welfare as we know it. Now, he threatens to veto welfare reform legislation. He promised a middle-class tax cut. Instead he engineered the largest tax increase in peacetime history. Now, he threatens to veto legislation that will cut the taxes of millions of American working men and women. He promised to cut government spending and reduce the Federal deficit. Instead, he threatens to veto legislation that will do just that. Mr. Speaker, we in the majority have delivered on our promises and we hope that the President will follow up on his end of the bargain.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Wall Street Journal reports that by almost a 3-to-1 margin, the American people agree tax dollars should not be used to fund groups to lobby the Government. I certainly agree with that principle, and I believe that as part of our reforms, we have got to end welfare for lobbyists. People in groups have every right to petition their Government. They ought to do more of it. But the American people should not have to pay more and more taxes so that some lobbying group that receives money from the Federal Government can spend more and more money up here lobbying to receive more and more money to come up here to lobby for more and more money. That is a vicious spending circle. It has got to stop. No wonder previous Congresses have been unable or unwilling to balance the budget. Those trying to fight this much-needed reform say it is draconian. But 96 percent of the nonprofit groups who have not abused the process would not be offended. Let us pass this legislation now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, some might argue otherwise but I would submit that this should not be controversial legislation. This bill would prohibit a particularly grotesque and inhuman practice. A partial birth abortion is literally the killing, in a most brutal fashion, of a late-term baby. It is incredible that a practice like this could go on in a civilized society. Adoption of this legislation would stop it. I hope my colleagues resoundingly support this bill. It is a major step in the battle to protect the lives of the unborn.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I am taking time tonight, along with some of my colleagues, to talk about what I fear could become one of the most serious foreign policy blunders in memory. Yesterday this House sent a resounding message to President Clinton. The message was simple: Do not send American ground troops to Bosnia without the approval of Congress. And I want to point out to those critics in the administration that this was a bipartisan message. Three hundred fifteen Members, including half of the President's own party in this body, voted in favor of this sense-of-the-House resolution. Yesterday's vote was a first step, and I want to emphasize first step, in this matter, and now I am confident that this House will take even stronger action in the coming days. Our colleagues, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], have introduced a binding legislative bill that will require the Clinton administration to seek the authorization of Congress before deploying any ground troops into Bosnia. We are not talking politics here, as much as the President would like to make this a partisan issue. We are talking about Congress' plenary control of the power of the purse and its moral obligation to address this fundamental policy issue. I fully expect this House to exercise its constitutional authority in the very near future. Madam Speaker, many of us in the Congress have a number of very serious questions we would like the Clinton administration to answer, and to date those answers have been few and far between. For instance, what kind of risk to our troops are we talking about? What is this operation going to cost in terms of American lives? Almost certainly there will be casualties in that treacherous and mountainous region of the world. I explicitly asked the Vice President for the administration's casualty estimates weeks ago, but I have not yet received an answer, not one word, from the administration on this matter. What is it going to cost in terms of taxpayer dollars? And where is the money going to come from? What are the rules of engagement? What happens the first time a stray bullet hits an American peacekeeper? What is the exit strategy? Madam Speaker, Secretaries Christopher and Perry insist that troops will be home in a year. Few believe that, but, if so, then what? An outbreak of lasting peace in the Balkans? If you believe that, I have got a bridge I would like to sell to you. These are critical questions, and the answers, are not forthcoming from the White House. Now I would submit that there is a reason that those answers have not been forthcoming. The reasons is that there is no clear mission. President Clinton mistakenly, and apparently without consulting anybody in Congress, promised to send American ground troops to Bosnia in the event of a peace agreement. If he had bothered to ask, somebody would have told him that the last three peace agreements in Bosnia have been dismal failures and that the presence of American troops in that troubled region would likely do little to improve the attitudes of the warring parties. Does President Clinton have the support of the American people in this instance? Absolutely not. I have received numerous calls and letters in my particular district in Cincinnati from people who have urged me to prevent United States troops from going in on the ground in Bosnia. I am still waiting for one call or one letter from anybody who thinks it is a good idea to send young Americans into Bosnia on the ground. One of the major newspapers in my district, the Cincinnati Enquirer, published an editorial last week which I think sums up the views of most of my constituents and the constituents of many other Members in this body, and I would like to insert that in the Record at this point. This is a copy of the article: [The Cincinnati Enquire, Oct. 24, 1995] No Way--Sending U.S. Troops to Bosnia Would be a Disastrous Blunder It may throw a wet blanket on the United Nations' 50th birthday party, but someone besides Russian President Boris Yeltsin should ask some tough questions about the U.N. debacle in Bosnia. Start by asking President Clinton: How can a contortionist who twisted himself into ethical pretzels to avoid Vietnam, send 20,000 U.S. troops marching into quicksand in Bosni? The echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable: Another war in which unsupported troops fight for unexplained goals in an ungrateful land. For all his recent rhetoric about rescuing NATO and performing a ``peacekeeping'' role, Clinton still has not offered a reason why one American life -- much less 20,000 -- should be risked for a shameful paper ``peace'' that ratifies the rape and plunder of Bosnia. The fragile truce now in effect (between attacks) exists only because the Bosnian Serbs dread Croatain attacks more than air strikes or U.N. scolding. Bloodthirsty Bosnian Serbs who bombarded unarmed cities are fleeing from the Croatian army. So now they suddenly want to talk peace. If a real peace agreement can be worked out in talk that begin Oct. 31 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, there will be plenty of soldiers on all side to enforce it. Sending U.S. troops into a flammable pit of ethnic hatred, where death has been a fact of life since 1992, will invite hostage taking and terrorism against our soldiers, to inflame American outrage against Clinton's policy. Somalia and the near-loss of a U.S. flier in Bosnia should be fresh, painful reminder that it is sheer folly to gamble American blood in a game where our nation has no cards to play. If that's not enough Clinton can recall his own protests against Vietnam. Instead, he threatens to invoke his presidential war powers to send troops, even if Congress balks. Clinton's crew is already squishy, backing down on promises that U.S. troops would be out in one year. Former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney told CBS, ``To talk about a timetable that we will be out within a year, when do don't know what the objective is, and haven't really develop a plan for executing that, raises serious questions about the quality of the decision making process within the administration.'' After leaving Bosnia policy on U.N. cruise control until it ran into a ditch, Clinton now wants to floorboard U.S. intervention. If he does, it will take more than a wrecker to pull us out. Madam Speaker, I want to stress again this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue where first and foremost we are talking about American lives, young men and young women who may be sent to die in a foreign land. We all remember the tragedy in Lebanon. Who can forget the image of those flag-draped caskets coming home from a peacekeeping mission in a land where there was no peace? And we remember the more recent tragedies when this Government sent more of its young people on a loosely defined mission to Somalia. The image of that young American soldier's body being dragged through the streets is forever etched in our memories. Madam Speaker, let us not commit our young soldiers to another so- called peacekeeping mission which is doomed to failure. Let us put a stop to this ill-advised Bosnian plan before it is too late.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. As the Clinton administration makes its final preparations for the Bosnia talks set to begin on Wednesday, it is of paramount [[Page H 11404]] importance that the President gets a strong message from the Congress that the American people do not support the commitment of United States ground troops in Bosnia. A strong bipartisan vote of approval for this resolution will send that message. This resolution is an important first step, but I emphasize first step Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle intend to take up binding legislation that will exercise Congress' power of the purse by prohibiting the use of funds for this dangerous and ill- conceived idea. Put American lives at risk on the ground in the middle of the bloody mess in Bosnia? Have we not learned anything from Vietnam, from Lebanon, from Somalia? Mr. GILMAN Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, perhaps confession is good for the soul, and good politics. Look at President Clinton. Last week at a fat-cat fundraiser in Texas, he confessed that he raised taxes too much in 1993. Today, the polls show that Mr. Clinton has gained some favor with the American public after that confession. I am sure that news has warmed the hearts of all those Democrats who were defeated last year after helping the President pass the largest tax increase in history. But there is a lesson in all this for those surviving House Democrats who followed their President like lemmings and voted to raise taxes on Social Security, who voted to raise taxes on low- and middle-income working families. The lesson is that it is not too late for you to have a change of heart, just as the President has. You can confess that you were wrong to raise taxes in 1993 and you can demonstrate your sincerity by helping the Republican majority cut the Clinton taxes and let working families keep more of their earnings. Taxes are too high. Let us cut them today.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as even President Clinton will admit, at least when he is a little tired, the Federal Government spends too much, and just as important, it taxes too much. The tax burden on working senior citizens is especially heavy. It is absolutely intolerable that working seniors who earn just over $11,000 are forced to give up significant Social Security benefits. As part of our Contract With America, we committed to easing the tax burden on senior citizens, and I am proud that today we will reaffirm that commitment through this resolution. I urge its support.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's reelection campaign is now in full swing, so once again he has flip-flopped his position on taxes. Now the President admits that he raised taxes too much in his 1993 budget. Let us listen to what the pundits around this Nation are saying: Eleanor Clift said, ``This is just one notch below `Read my lips.''' Margaret Carlson said, ``It was pandering of the worst sort, and it's indefensible.'' Morton Kondracke said, ``It's evidence of a character disorder on Bill Clinton's part.'' Mr. Speaker, candidate Bill Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut, but then President Bill Clinton raised taxes on the American people. This week the Republican majority will deliver on those promised tax cuts, and it is about time.