Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. That is exactly correct. The liberals on the other side of the aisle are trying to link the two. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Medicare pay cuts or, excuse me, the tax cuts, were taken care of earlier back in April, and we have a plan that does not affect Medicare at all. The two are entirely separate, but what they are trying to do is play the old political partisan game and scare senior citizens. I think that is reprehensible for them to play that game. What I wish they would do is come with us and work together with us so we can actually solve this Medicare crisis, and I hope the President ultimately will do the right thing as well.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and we appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] getting the time this evening so we could talk among ourselves and talk to the American public this evening, first of all about what we accomplished in the last year, and then we would also like to go into considerable detail about the Republican plan to save Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is it was 1 year ago today, as a matter of fact, that all three of us and many of our colleagues came to this city from communities all over the country. My district is the First District of Ohio, most of the city of Cincinnati, and many of the western suburban areas of Cincinnati, and I came from that area, and you gentlemen came from your districts. We came here to Washington to sign what I really believe was an historic document. I had talked to a lot of people in my community, and I asked them, ``If you were Congress, what would you do? What do you think this Congress should be about? What kind of changes would you like to see made?'' I heard the same types of things, it turns out, that you gentlemen were hearing in your districts: that people thought taxes were way too high, they were sick and tired of money being spent up here in Washington so excessively that we had such a huge debt, they wanted [[Page H 9579]] us to balance the budget, they wanted us to reform welfare, they wanted regulatory reform, they wanted tort reform, and so many things. So we signed a document, we put our name on the line, and we told the people of this Nation that if we had a Republican majority here in the House of Representatives, where we are tonight, if we had a majority of Republicans in the House within the first 100 days, the first 100 days of us being here, we would have an open debate on the floor of this room we are in right now and a vote on 10 specific items. The interesting thing is a lot of people thought, ``Maybe that is just politicians' talk, and they never really carry out their promises,'' but we kept our promises. We did what we said we were going to do, we had an open debate and a vote on the floor of this House on all those items within the first 100 days. In fact, we did it within 93 days. Most of those items, all but one, passed in the House. I think it was one of the most proud times I have had in my whole life, was actually carrying out the promises that we made to the people back home. I think probably what would be a good thing for us to do is to discuss specifically what those items were we did, first of all, since it was exactly 1 year ago today that we made that promise, and how in the first 100 days we kept those promises. So perhaps the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] might want to take over from there and discuss those promises that we kept.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we Republicans in Congress have been working very hard to come up with a plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress here are refusing to help us, choosing instead to push a MediScare campaign. This is a prime example of putting partisan politics above the needs of the American people. These liberal Democrats claim that the Republican plan will cut Medicare to pay for a so-called tax break for the rich. Mr. Speaker, those tax cuts were paid for last April and mainly benefited working families, not the wealthy. Now Democrats are even running TV ads that are designed to help mislead the American people into believing their partisan fantasies. But Republicans will not be sidetracked. We remain committed to the task at hand, saving Medicare and preserving it for this generation and for future generations. We do not believe that politics should stand in the way of this goal. Saving Medicare is too important.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I think that is exactly right, and you know you brought up Medicare, and you also mentioned the trustees and the report. Maybe we should talk a little bit about that; you know, the trustees' report included three of the President's high administrative officials. There were Democrats and Republicans who studied Medicare in depth and came out with a very detailed report that said, if we do nothing about Medicare, it starts losing money next year and goes bankrupt by the year 2002, which is 7 years down the road. So I think all of us here tonight and all the Republicans I have talked to, and I think in fairness some of the Democrats too, are committed to saving Medicare. It is absolutely critical to seniors, it is critical to those who will be seniors down the road, we have to save Medicare. Now, let us be frank about this: There is a scare campaign that has been going on, we have heard it on the floor here now for some weeks and months even, where some liberals are trying to scare seniors and saying there is a plan to cut Medicare. I think, once and for all, we need to put that to rest. None of us are talking about cutting Medicare, period. We do need to save it. What we have been doing back in the district is we have been talking to seniors and getting their ideas. One of the things I heard from seniors is that they believe there really is a lot of waste, a [[Page H 8678]] lot of fraud in the system right now. People have been overcharged. Hospital bills have come through for things that they did not get the service for. One lady gave me some horror stories, and I just happened to clip an article out of the Washington Times newspaper recently. It is a short article. I would just like to read this. I found this very interesting. Representative Joe Knollenberg, Michigan Republican, He is a Member of Congress here, 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 over $368,000 For 4 days, $368,000. 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 seven-hour, and I will repeat that, seven-hour stay in the emergency room, according to the bill, required over $347,000 worth of supplies. Well, after much hemming and hawing, says Congressman Knollenberg, the hospital admitted it had made a mistake. Instead of over $347,000, the actual charge should have been $61.30. That is right, $61.30. An overcharge of over $346,000. 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. So this is the tip of the iceberg, one example. What we need to do, one of the things I think is we need to get seniors involved in giving them an incentive to closely look at those bills and see if they are being overcharged, and perhaps give them a percentage, some kind of incentive for them to look through the bills and help us to reduce the costs which have been soaring out of control.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Jones, what are you hearing in North Carolina?

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to share this evening with the C-SPAN viewers and some of my fellow colleagues who I am going to introduce in just a moment. We are going to have approximately an hour colloquy here this evening. The topic basically is we just got back to Washington yesterday. We have spent the last month in districts all over this country talking with the people that we represent. I, for example, had a town meeting in a community, a township of Delhi, we had a town meeting in Colerain Township. I visited a number of senior citizens' centers around my district, toured factories, really to find out what it is on people's minds back in my district. And it was a very, very positive response for the most part. The thing that I heard probably more than anything else is we really like the fact that you and most of the freshmen in particular, and some of the other Members that you have been working with, kept your promise. You did what you said you were going to do in the Contract With America, and they were very, very pleased that we have been doing that. On the other hand, they have been a bit disappointed with how slow the Senate has been moving on a number of these things, so I did hear that a number of times, but they were very positive about what has been going on in the House, and there were many, many things that we talked about. Particularly the one issue that kept coming up time and time again was the importance of balancing this budget. The people out there realize that the budget is just too large. This institution, Congress, has spent $5 trillion more than it has brought in over the past couple of decades, and the deficit is just too, too large. The American public, people in my district, realize that. They want us to do something about that, and the message came through to me loud and clear that they believe that the answer to balancing this budget is not to raise taxes, but rather to cut spending, and I have talked to a lot of my colleagues here, and I think that is what their frame of mind is and what they believe we ought to do. So at this point I kind of would like to introduce a couple of my colleagues that are here this evening. First of all, let me introduce Mr. Manzullo. He is from Illinois. And then we have a good friend of mine, Mr. Jones, who is from the State of North Carolina, and I mentioned this, I think, last time, that my mother is from North Carolina. She was born and raised in Charlotte, NC, so she always likes to hear you speak. And we also have here Mr. Lewis from just across the Ohio River from me in the State of Kentucky. And then Mr. Hayworth is going to be joining us in just a few minutes here, and is from Arizona. So at this time, Mr. Lewis, what do you hear back in Kentucky?

Mr. CHABOT. I would like to thank all you gentlemen for spending your time here this evening. Again I think the message that we got loud and clear was do not back down, balance the budget, do it now.

Mr. CHABOT. I would like to thank all the gentlemen, and gentleman from Arizona, the gentleman of North Carolina, and the gentleman from Illinois for being with us here this evening. Are there any concluding remarks that any of the gentlemen would like to make at this point? [[Page H 8682]]

Mr. CHABOT. I think the gentleman's analogy about his son paying over $180,000 in his lifetime just on the interest is an excellent analogy. Another one I think that really hits home as to how large this debt is, that if we do not do something within the next year or so, we are going to be paying more just on the interest on the debt than we do for our entire military expenditures. Just think of how much we spend on the military, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Pentagon, just think of all the ships that are out at sea, the planes, the soldiers we have, how much that costs. It is a lot of money. We are going to be spending less for all of that then we will just for the interest on the debt. It is an incredibly large amount of money. We can no longer afford to pay that because it is driving us completely bankrupt. So I think it is important. What I heard from the folks back in Cincinnati over and over again was, ``Stick to your guns, balance the budget, work with the President, there's no sense in going to war if you don't need to, but if he wants you to spend more money, don't do it. Balance the budget.''

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, we also have to start paying it off. So we have to spend not only no more than we bring in. We have got to spend less than we bring in for a period of time to get rid of that debt. The debt is so large now, it is mind-boggling. Fourteen percent of every dollar that our citizens send up here in the form of taxes goes just to pay the interest on the debt. It is scary, it really is.

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Illinois mentioned that we give government too much responsibility now basically to take care of people's every needs. I read a book recently, in fact it was on the list that the Speaker gave us earlier in the year and suggested that we read, it is called the Tragedy of American Compassion. It is a relatively long book, but the interesting and boiling it down to its main point is that for many, many years basically Americans took care of each other, through charities, through churches, and then at some point in our history, and the largest portion of it occurred during the so-called Great Society years, in the 1960's with L.B.J. and folks that thought along those lines, the government basically took over, people no longer really helped their fellow Americans and people that were down and out as much. They expected that the government would do so. Welfare rolls went way up. The whole system basically has gone downhill from there. Not only has that been destructive but that helped to make the budget go out of balance. We are all paying for that huge debt in many, many ways. So this Congress is about finally trying to balance that budget. As you gentlemen all know, we earlier this year passed the very first balanced budget resolution in the last 30 years. It puts us on a glide path to balancing this budget within the next 7 years. Talking about what folks back in our districts were talking about and what kind of cuts we ought to make, one cut that I heard over and over again is that why are we paying so much in foreign aid? I agree with the folks that think that we have been paying far too much over the years and that is why we passed a resolution earlier this year to cut back on the amount of foreign aid that we are spending by $21 billion over the next 7 years. It is the largest reduction in foreign aid in our Nation's history. I think that that was a proper thing for us to do. It is going to help us to balance the budget. Something that is coming up relatively soon that I think that folks, that maybe out at C-SPAN, we ought to give them a heads-up and let them know that we are going to be facing this, because we are going to be facing perhaps, I hope it does not happen, but perhaps an impasse with the President in the near future. We are saying we want to balance this budget, we are making what we think are the necessary cuts and this is how much we can spend and if we spend this much, we are on the glide path to balancing this budget. The President wants to spend more than we do. He wants us to add a lot of big spending back into the program. If we do that, we are not going to balance the budget. So we need very much I think to stick to our guns. That is what I heard: ``Don't blink, don't back down to the President, stick to your guns, balance the budget.'' What have you gentlemen been hearing?

Mr. CHABOT. I think something that is important to point out is that some of the folks on the other side of aisle, those that tend to be more liberal, have had a tendency to try to paint us who are in favor of changing, reforming welfare, they have tried to paint us as being coldhearted and not caring about families, children that are stuck in welfare. I would argue that there could not be anything more damaging, more dangerous to those kids than the current welfare system which will basically encourage them to grow up in that same destructive pattern of behavior that put their parents in that system to begin with. We are trying to change that system to get these kids out of that very destructive welfare system that we have in this country, to totally reform the system. I am very optimistic that over time we will actually be able to accomplish that. I think that is really one of the most priority issues that we have facing this country. Another thing about welfare that has always bothered me, that does not get mentioned, I do not think, enough, is that we have to figure out where the money is going to those folks on welfare is coming from. Oftentimes the money is coming from other parents, sometimes single mothers who are working two jobs that are paying more taxes than they ought to that comes up here to Washington and then goes back down to the States, back down to the folks receiving welfare. So you are taking money away from hard working, sometimes lower middle class folks and giving it to other folks who in general ought to be working to support their own children.

Mr. CHABOT. And the thing that again I heard over and over again is that people did want to help those who truly needed help. But they felt it ought to be temporary; it should not be a permanent way of life. Unfortunately, far too often that is what it has become, and in fact you have got generation after generation after generation of people who are receiving welfare and just never get off.

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will yield, I think that relates to something I have heard over and over at my town meetings back home, and that is that one area where people really do think there has been a tremendous amount of waste, and I agree, and that is the billions and billions of dollars that we have spent on welfare over the years. In fact, since the Great Society years, we have spent about $5 trillion just on welfare. I would argue and many of the people that I talked to back in the district felt this way, that most of that money was counterproductive. It encourages fathers to leave their homes and not to be home and help to raise their kids. It allows kids basically to just assume that a check will come from the Government every month, that nobody in the home ever goes to work, and the Government just supports folks. That is not the way it is; it is not helpful to those kids. I heard over and over again that people were very pleased that we had passed a very good welfare reform package here in the House. Of course we are still waiting for the other body to act upon that.

Mr. CHABOT. I believe there should be, and we have gone through and really established a criteria. The only bill that I personally would support is one, for example, that continues to allow seniors to have the choice to choose their own doctors, to make things so they would have a series of choices to make, but not to have some bureaucrat up here in Washington telling them what their health care should be like or what doctors they should go to. I thing that is important. Let seniors have a high quality of care, continue to have a high quality of care, and have them have choices.

Mr. CHABOT. Good to hear it. Sounds like the people in my State of Ohio are saying the same types of things that we are hearing both in Kentucky and in North Carolina. How about in Illinois? What are you hearing?

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this week Congress will vote to undo some of the damage that previous Congresses caused over the last 40 years. For too long politicians here in Washington assured the American people that they had all the answers to society's problems. Since the 1960's the Federal Government has created so many programs and so many spending plans that it is absolutely mind boggling. I think it is fair to say that there is not one accountant, not one Government bureaucrat who can name all of the programs that the Federal Government--and the American taxpayer--pays for. And what has all this spending created? Debt, debt, and more debt. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end the Government free-for-all. It is time to set our priorities straight and work together to balance the Federal budget, if not for our own sake, then for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment my good friend and neighbor, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for his outstanding work in saving taxpayer dollars in this area. This amendment will send a strong message to the Federal courts: We are serious about bringing wasteful Federal spending under control. This $2 million start is a very good first step. What is this $2 million all about? Unfortunately, courts around the country have failed to grasp the seriousness of our current budget crisis. At a time when every newborn child is already saddled with a bill of $187,000 just to pay the interest on the national debt, many courts have been moving into high rent buildings that dramatically increase the cost to taxpayers. In several areas, including our city of Cincinnati, the bankruptcy courts have moved into luxurious downtown buildings with rents that range from $900,000 to $1.5 million per year. WCPO TV, Channel 9 in Cincinnati, should receive credit for focusing attention on this particular abuse of taxpayer dollars regarding the Cincinnati Bankruptcy Court. Further investigation has shown that this is not an isolated incident. Bankruptcy courts across the country have limited their relocation options by requiring such amenities as 16- foot-high ceilings and cultured marble sinks, and judges' chambers equipped with bathrooms, showers, and kitchenettes. In other instances, court specifications are so rigid that building is limited to just a handful of buildings, sometimes only one building. As we all know, when we limit competition, it costs more. We should pass the Portman amendment. I strongly support it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, relative to the term new starts, many of these projects, nothing has actually happened on the ground. There are some environmental studies or they are in some sort of study. Nothing has really happened. So many of them are in the very early stages. I believe it is absolutely critical for the future of this Nation that we finally balance the budget, not by raising taxes but by cutting spending. We are looking for places to cut spending. This is clearly a place to cut spending. The Federal Government has financed a number of fixed guideway mass transit projects over the past three decades. This year the House Committee on the Budget at last decided that new light rail systems cannot be economically justified and recommended that we end the practice of funding these new projects. Despite huge amounts of Federal spending to build and then to subsidize the operating expenses of local light rail systems, many of these projects are proving to be expensive boondoggles. The Smith-Chabot amendment would accelerate the savings to the taxpayers by eliminating from next year's spending $66 million for new starts. Now, that is a huge amount of money. But the implications of this initial spending go far beyond that. We are talking about long- term commitment that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars if these things go through. Once these projects are started, cities and States look to the Federal Government to pay future construction costs. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations reported that the Federal cost for completing new projects has surged $20 billion, a 150-percent increase over 4 years ago. I have been told by people back in my district, which is Cincinnati, that our No. 1 priority should be achieving a balanced budget. I strongly agree with those sentiments. Many of the people at the State and local level do not believe that light rail makes economic sense but will nonetheless proceed with such projects if the Federal Government will foot the bill. We can no longer afford to foot the bill. We are broke. At a time when our No. 1 priority is achieving a balanced budget, Federal funding for new light rail projects just does not make sense. A Department of Transportation study has found that subsidies for building and operating mass transit rail programs costs between $5,000 and over $17,000 per rider. New mass transit rail systems are so incredibly expensive to build that it might actually be cheaper if we just bought people cars. It is absurd. We should pass this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I know a very good way that we can save the $9.5 million in the next fiscal year, and that is to defund the NEH. Even the most distinguished former chairman of the NEH, Lynn Cheney, has concluded that the NEH does more harm than good and should be eliminated. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to emphasize something very strongly, and that is that I am not against the arts, and neither are any of my colleagues who are in favor of defunding the NEH. What we are in favor of is finally balancing the Federal budget. I have people in my district, mothers and fathers who work two jobs to pay their taxes, and they are willing to make some sacrifices. I would argue very strongly that if we are serious about balancing the budget, things like the NEA and the NEH should be supported by private dollars, not by our Federal tax dollars. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we face a lot of hard budget choices, but we have still got some pretty easy decisions to make as well, like ending the National Endowment for the Humanities, the NEH. My amendment would do just that. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will save the taxpayers of this country nearly $100 million and that is why groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Americans for Tax Reform have all weighed in and strongly support this amendment. We will have to make some sacrifices, sacrifices like the Conversation Kit that the NEH has produced to teach folks how to talk to one another. It is true, the National Endowment for the Humanities spent $1.7 million to teach the American public how to talk to each other. They also, in that same kit, suggested that there are conversation starters from obscure movies like ``Casablanca'' that we ought to watch and then we all can talk about the movie, and they have spent tax dollars in order to educate the American public so we can all talk to each other. I think that is absurd. I, for one, do not really think that we need the Federal Government spending our money to tell us that we should watch ``Casablanca.'' But I am here to tell you that the NEH folks, they have not backed off one bit from their view that the Conversation Kit represents the best use of the NEH dollars. Consider some of the other ways that the NEH has spent our tax dollars. They spent $114,000 to Catholic University to support the preparation of a database for indexes for Gregorian chants. They spent $135,000 for 24 college teachers to travel to a summer institute to chat about sex and gender in the Middle Ages. They spent $201,000 for Laurie Conlevit of Filmmakers Collaborative for a feature length documentary of the life and world of the 18th century midwife, Martha Ballard. They gave $400,000 to Doran H. Ross at UCLA for something called the ``Art of Being Cuna,'' which is an expressive culture of some islands in Panama. Now, many of these projects I am sure, are nice to do if we have got the money to do it. I would argue that at a time when we are serious about finally balancing the Federal budget, that we should not be spending hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on the NEH at this point. These types of programs, if they are going to be funded, should be funded privately through philanthropy, not Federal tax dollars. But the problem is not just that the NEH wastes tax dollars; it also breeds arrogance in the culture bureaucrats who sneer at the citizens who pay the freight. I recently received a letter from the chief NEH functionary in Ohio who asserted, and this is his exact language, ``If there were no NEH, the public intellectual life of Ohio would shrink considerably.'' I have little doubt that he actually believes that and, perhaps, in his limited circle the intellectual climate is indeed that errant. But the intellectual life of Ohio is strong, it is vibrant and, I might add, that it predates 1965, when the NEH was formed. We got along just fine before Federal tax dollars started being spent for this back in 1965.

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

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

Mr. CHABOT. I think what the gentleman from California said is the bottom line. We have got almost a $5 trillion debt. These dollars that are going to go to the National Endowment for the Humanities are being borrowed. They are being borrowed from American taxpayers all across this country, and we just do not have the money. If we are serious about balancing the budget, these are the types of cuts that have to be made. This is the type of vote where we determine who is really serious about balancing the budget and who is not. That is the type of vote that this particular amendment says. I strongly support this amendment.