Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I think those are excellent, excellent points, Walter. And something in particular that you said about Medicare and the fact that the liberal Democrats up here in the Congress have been scaring senior citizens about alleged cuts that are nonexistent, but they keep talking about them. Senator Paul Simon, who is a Democrat, said that the greatest threat to Social Security and Medicare is this huge debt. The fact that the budget is not balanced. That is the greatest threat to both Social Security and Medicare. That is why it is absolutely critical that we balance this budget. We have got an almost $5 trillion debt that we have got to finally balance. And that is what we are about.

Mr. CHABOT. I certainly will. At this time, I will recognize three of my esteemed colleagues in Washington tonight. First of all, I would like to introduce the gentleman from Illinois, Don Manzullo. Next we have Walter Jones who is from the great State of North Carolina and I have a particular fondness for the State of North Carolina, because my mother was born and raised in Charlotte, North Carolina. We also have, tonight, Ron Lewis who is from the State over the Ohio River from my State, the State of Kentucky. At this time I yield to my good friend from Illinois, Don Manzullo.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity to have this hour this evening to have a discussion with our constituents and, really, Americans all across this country. I have three other colleagues who are here this evening and we are all going to be talking during the course of this hour, whatever time of the hour that we take up this evening. We wanted to let the American public know what types of things that we have been hearing as we have been back in our district. For example, we spent about the last 10 days prior to this Monday in districts all over this country talking with regular people in our districts to see what they thought about what we were doing, what suggestions that they had, and what kind of modifications they would like to see made in this, the people's House. I happen to be from the first district of Ohio, which in essence is the city of Cincinnati and some of the western suburbs. Rob Portman is in the eastern part of the city in some of the eastern areas; I have got basically the west side of town. I ran, I am a freshman; I was just elected this past November. The people really spoke overwhelmingly, I think, all across this country and said they were not particularly pleased with what had been going on here in Congress. They wanted a change. Mr. Speaker, I talked to a lot of people before I ran for Congress last year to find out and I asked a basic question. I said, ``If you were in Congress, what would you do?'' And there were other Members who were running all over the country and they asked basically the same question and we all talked last year and we wrote down a document and we all signed our names to it, telling the American public if we had a majority of Republicans in Congress, what we would do. We told them up front what we would do. And that is what we have been about for the past 6 months, is delivering on what we told the American public we would do if we had a majority. We do have a Republican majority here in the House for the first time in my lifetime. I am 42 years old. I was born in 1953. And the last time there was a majority of Republicans here in the House was in 1952. I think the main thing we were told that we heard over and over again is we have got to balance this budget. I heard that over and over again. And what people said. They said, balance the budget; not by raising taxes, but by cutting spending and that is what we are trying to do. And I heard, and I want to be real clear about one thing in particular, because I heard some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the liberal Democrats, they talk about one issue in particular and that is Medicare. And they keep saying that we have some kind of plan to cut Medicare. That is absolutely not true. I want to make very clear tonight we have absolutely no intention of cutting Medicare. In fact, our projections are that we are going to increase Medicare spending from $4,800 a year to $6,700 per year per Medicare recipient. So there is absolutely no plan to cut Medicare. However, the President's own people, his own trustees council, indicated that if we do not do something about Medicare, it is going to go broke by the year 2002. We want to save Medicare. We want to preserve Medicare, and we are absolutely committed to doing that. So the scare tactics that quite frankly we have heard were the liberal Democrats here in Congress, not all Democrats, but the liberal Democrats in Congress are trying to scare senior citizens all over the country by saying that we have a plan to cut Medicare. I want to make clear that we have absolutely no plan to cut Medicare, but we do need to balance this budget and we are going to do it by cutting spending, not by raising taxes. And one of the reasons I think we absolutely should not raise taxes is because the American family is just overburdened with taxes. Taxes are too high in this country. Around the time when I was born, around 1950, the average American family paid 5 percent of what they made to Washington in the form of Federal taxes. Now it is 25 percent. So the average American family's taxes to Washington have gone up from 5 percent to 25 percent in the last 40 years. That does not count the State taxes and city taxes. We have got to do something about that.

Mr. CHABOT. Now, we would like to turn to the gentleman from North Carolina, Walter Jones. What have you been hearing in your district back home and what do you think the people are thinking now?

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is going bankrupt. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. We can act responsibly and search for a solution, or we act like Congress has for the last 40 years and make decisions based on politics, not on principle. I am proud that my party has chosen to act responsibly. I wish I could say the same about the other party. Under the Republican proposal to save Medicare, per person Medicare spending will increase from $4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002. Boy, that does not sound like a cut to me. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no plan. None. Nada. Zippo. Mr. Speaker, if we do nothing, Medicare would not just be in financial trouble, it would not exist. So, when hearing the liberal Democrats talk about how Republican spending increases will destroy Medicare, ask yourself a question that is based on facts: Who is hurting the poor, the party acting to save Medicare--the Republicans-- or the party defending the status quo and allowing Medicare to go bankrupt--the Democrats? It is kind of like asking, ``Who's buried in `Grant's Tomb.' ''

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, while Republicans are working to fulfill their promise of changing business as usual in Washington, liberal Democrats have their sights set on campaign 1996. The Clinton White House has begun campaign efforts by starting their own version of the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Instead of buying chances at winning the million dollar grand prize, big Clinton campaign contributors are buying chances at winning big White House favors. In this political game, grand prize contributors of $100,000 win two dinners with President Clinton, two receptions with Vice President Al Gore, plus, their very own spot on a foreign trade mission with business and party leaders. They have yet to confirm if Ed McMahon will announce the winners of these special White House perks.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Smith].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment. My friend from New Jersey is offering essentially the same amendment which was adopted in this House on May 24, during consideration of the American Overseas Interests Act. It is a much-needed amendment. I hope this House will continue to support it. As my colleagues know, the music had barely stopped playing at the inaugural ball when President Clinton kicked off his international abortion campaign. Literally hours after assuming office, the new President sought to overturn long-standing pro-life policies espoused by both the Reagan and the Bush administrations. The Smith amendment seeks to bring that 2\1/2\-year campaign to a halt. It makes it less likely that United States tax dollars will pay for coerced abortions in China and in other countries. Voluntary abortion is bad enough, but forcing a woman to have an abortion is an absolute crime against humanity. It is an abomination. Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment will restore some of the well- reasoned pro-life policies that the U.S. Government insisted on before President Clinton was sworn into office. I urge my colleagues to resoundingly support the Smith amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the budget plan the House will debate and vote on this week is one of the most important pieces of legislation this Congress will vote on for the next 2 years. It is important because this Federal Government cannot continue on the path it has been on for generations now. We can no longer afford massive social spending programs that have little impact on the problems they were created to solve. We can no longer afford to bury future generations under a mountain of debt. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to put to rest the idea the Government has all the answers and if we throw more money at the problems we can solve those problems. It is time to let American families keep more of what they earn. Republicans are keeping our promises. We are finally balancing the budget, not by raising taxes but by cutting spending.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will have an opportunity to vote for a foreign aid bill which, for the first time in nearly a half- century puts the interests of the American taxpayer first. H.R. 1561 eliminates three major Government agencies and more than 20 low priority programs. It cuts $3.7 billion from current spending over the next 2 years and it calls for savings of $21 billion over the next 7 years. The American Overseas Interests Act finally brings an end to the foreign policy status quo. It concentrates our limited resources on helping our friends to help themselves, it improves our global antiterrorism efforts and it strengthens our hand in the area of international narcotics control. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Gilman and the International Relations Committee have crafted a good bill--a bill which protects the interests of the American taxpayer and brings an end to the foreign aid status quo. I urge my colleagues to support the American Overseas Interests Act.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman, and the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, for their leadership in getting this amendment accomplished, and also the gentleman from California [Mr. Ackerman], the cosponsor on the other side of the aisle, for his assistance in this important amendment. While the African continent is making great strides toward democracy, economic development, free markets and human rights, many African nations continue to face terrible hardships. This modest amendment will provide much-needed help to Africa without costing American taxpayers any additional dollars.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we have been debating the foreign aid bill for the last few days and we have heard a lot of criticisms about foreign aid programs. Some are justified and some are not, but undoubtedly some good things have been accomplished. I would like to include in the Record, following my remarks, a recent Cincinnati Post guest column written by my friend, Dan Radford, executive secretary- treasurer of the Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council, who has had a very productive working relationship with the U.S. Information Agency. Working under a grant from USIA, the AFL-CIO's Free Trade Union Institute has worked closely with trade union leaders from Ukraine and Kazakhstan. A delegation from those former Soviet States recently visited Cincinnati to get some positive exposure to our political and economic system, with the local labor council serving as host. It is my hope that as we move toward a more streamlined and productive foreign policy apparatus, we will be able to work with groups like this and continue in a more efficient way to provide the means for such positive dialog. I include the Radford article in the Record at this time as a valuable contribution to the discussion.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment and in opposition to the Morella amendment, and I would also like to make clear that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who spoke so eloquently just a few minutes ago, when he was speaking out against the amendment, he was referring to the Morella amendment. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] strongly supports the Smith amendment. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is one of the great leaders of the pro-life movement, along with the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde and also the gentlewoman from Nevada, Mrs. Vucanovich, who will be speaking shortly, and I want to commend all three of them for their commitment over the years to the defense of the innocent unborn. This amendment will simply restore the pro-life policies that served as the basis for U.S. international population policy during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Even though the American people strongly oppose the use of tax dollars for abortions, the Clinton administration has embarked on a worldwide crusade to promote abortion in the developing world. The Smith amendment attempts to curb that crusade by preventing U.S. tax dollars from going to any private, nongovernmental or multilateral organization that directly or indirectly performs abortions in foreign countries. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Smith amendment is a sensible amendment, it is a much-needed amendment, and it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act. I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], our chairman, for his outstanding leadership in steering this historic legislation through the Committee on International Relations and to the floor today. H.R. 1561 is truly historic legislation. It goes where no foreign aid bill has gone before. It completely overhauls the foreign aid bureaucracy, eliminating three major agencies: The Agency for International Development, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Their functions and budgets will be cut and folded into the State Department at a great savings to the American taxpayer. H.R. 1561 eliminates dozens of lower-priority programs. It cuts spending by more than $1 billion next year, a $1.8 billion reduction from President Clinton's budget request. And it calls for further cuts of $21 billion over the course of our 7-year glidepath to a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote ``yes'' for this bill. Despite all the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle that we are going to hear, let me stress what a ``no'' vote on this bill really means. A ``no'' vote means a vote for the status quo. A ``no'' vote means that our efforts to cut out wasteful bureaucracy will be stonewalled. A ``no'' vote means a needless delay in our efforts to bring much-needed relief to the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I am one of those Members who would like to cut even more, and I will vote for amendments to do just that. However, on the whole, this is a good bill. It begins the process. It mandates the reorganization of our foreign policy apparatus so that next year we can make even more of the budget reductions needed to balance the budget and provide a secure future for our children. Mr. Chairman, again I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, and members of the Committee on International Relations for crafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] for this important amendment. The people of this country spoke loudly and clearly last November. They clearly said, ``Balance the budget,'' and not by raising taxes but by cutting spending. One area that the American people said to cut is foreign aid. While I strongly agree with the sentiment of the American people that foreign aid must be cut, what the gentleman from Kansas does in this amendment is to make additional cuts of approximately $477 million. If we are going to ask some Americans, for example, those who are dependent upon welfare, to be less dependent on the Government, then surely we must insist that other countries be less dependent on our Government as well. I strongly support the Brownback amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for organizing this important special order tonight. It should be absolutely clear by now. We are dead serious about limiting the size and scope of our overblown Federal bureaucracy. I do not think there is much doubt about that anymore--in anyone's mind. We mean to get this budget deficit under control; we mean to get the Federal Government out of areas it doesn't have any business being in; and we mean to improve the efficiency of the Federal Government in those areas where it does serve a useful role. Today, I was proud to stand among a group of committed reformers pledging to reduce shameful corporate welfare by eliminating the Department of Commerce. Tomorrow, I and other colleagues of ours will announce plans to return control over our childrens' educations to parents, to teachers, and to local communities: Our Back To Basics Education Reform Act will bring an end to the meddlesome and wasteful Federal Department of Education, while enhancing local control over schools. And shortly, plans will be announced to dismantle the Federal Department of Energy, an agency that stands as a monument to bureaucratic solutions for problems of another era. Let us be clear: The Department of Commerce is not being eliminated simply because the man currently in charge there labors under an ethics cloud so ominous that the Department of Justice has been forced to call for the appointment of a special prosecutor. No, the Department of Commerce is being eliminated because it is wasteful, because it duplicates the work of other agencies, and, yes, because it acts in part to funnel aid to corporations of vast wealth that frankly do not need to beg handouts from the taxpayers. Our colleague from Michigan, Dick Chrysler, and the other members of the Commerce Task Force have done a superb job in crafting legislation to untangle the mess at the Commerce Department and save the taxpayers some $7\3/4\ billion--that's ``billion,'' with a ``B''--over 5 years. I venture to predict, Mr. Speaker, that our country can survive without the Federal Travel and Tourism Administration that is part of the Department of Commerce. Most of my constituents have never used the USTTA: We do not need it, and States, localities, and the private sector can do the job better. Same for the Department's so-called Office of Technology Commercialization. Why should the Government pick winners and losers in the marketplace? The Government's not good at that, and it is just not fair for the Feds to come in on the side of one firm while completely ignoring other competitors. It is an insult to the productive, innovative private businesses in my district in Cincinnati and across this country to suggest that they need the Federal Department of Commerce in order to do their work. The business people I know do not need corporate welfare; what they need is a more rational, less oppressive Federal Government. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the good things that the Commerce Department does could be done better and more efficiently in other existing agencies, while the wasteful programs that the Department pursues should not exist at all. The General Accounting Office has told us that the Department overlaps ``with at least 71 [other] Federal departments, agencies, and offices.'' We will save those programs that are productive and shift them to more appropriate agencies. Those that serve no valid purpose will be eliminated altogether. That is only common sense. Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers are watching. They have been in a cynical mood for quite some time now. And they want to be certain that they are not going to get the same old song and dance from Washington. We have made a lot of progress in the last few months and we can take further steps to restore their confidence by acting on this important and very necessary legislation. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for organizing this special order.

Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, let us go over it one more time. According to the President's own advisors, the Medicare Trust Fund will be bankrupt by the year 2002. Republicans have crafted a bill which will save Medicare. Let me refer to this chart. In doing so, we have proposed that Federal spending on Medicare increase from $178 to $258 billion. Let me repeat that. Medicare will go up under the Republican plan. And what is the Democrat Medicare plan? Are they working tirelessly to save a system that their own leaders maintain is going bankrupt? Not a chance. What they are doing is running, one after another, to the camera, the nearest camera, to proclaim that Republicans are cutting Medicare. It is not true. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my Democrat friends that the American people are not going to fall for their distortions. But they might help. I think the American people are going to wonder why the Democrats are not helping to save Medicare. Let us work together to save Medicare.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, once again I think we can see clearly that Medicare spending goes up from $4,700 per recipient up to $6,300 per recipient. It is not a cut, it is as simple as the figures right here. Mr. Speaker, in 1969 Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Joe Namath predicted a Jets victory in Superbowl III and my home State, Ohio State, won the Rose Bowl. In 1969, that was the last time that Congress passed a balanced budget. Today, 26 years later, the Republican majority is trying to repeat history. We have submitted a historic plan to once again balance the Federal budget. For the past 26 years, Congress let the Federal budgets grow and grow and grow. The social spending programs of the sixties ballooned and blossomed. They raised taxes, but they could not kick the spending habit. It is time, finally, that we balance this budget. We begin this week.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, where is the cut? This chart shows that under the Republican budget plan, Medicare spending will increase by nearly $100 billion over the next 7 years. Now, this second chart that we are going to show here shows that spending per recipient for welfare recipients will go from $4,700 up to $6,300 per person. Now, I know this has to come as a complete shock to my friends on the other side of the aisle who spare no opportunity to scream about imagined Medicare cuts. They look at America and they see only two kinds of people: The wealthy and the victimized. The wealthy are, of course, evil and in need of punishment. The victims need protection, and they think that only liberal Democrats here in Congress can provide that protection. Well, the liberal political world view has been almost totally rejected by the American people. Americans are tired of excuses. They are tired of the slick blame game, and they will not be scared by the liberal Democrat shrieks they hear here in Congress anymore. These are imaginary cuts. They do not exist.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Republicans produced a historic plan to bring us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. The liberal Democrats here in Congress have already jumped on the whining, moaning, and groaning bandwagon to denounce our plan in every way they can. But let me just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle one question, Where's your bill? Where's your plan to balance the budget? The fact is that you don't have a plan. You haven't submitted anything in writing to balance the budget. Instead, you are content to sit there maintaining the status quo while our children's future goes down the drain. Mr. Speaker, Republicans care about the future of our country. Republicans will pass a balanced budget. We will keep our promise to the American people.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 months the liberal Democrats in Congress have been feeding the public a steady diet of class warfare rhetoric. Somehow they think that the budget problems we face will magically disappear if the phrase tax cut for the rich is repeated over and over. This strategy exposes the fact that liberal Democrats have a lack of conviction in solving the Nation's problems. They offer no leadership and they seek to divide America along class lines. Since the start of the 104th Congress, Republicans have offered a vision of America that can solve its problems and we proved that we can keep our promises. Republicans here in the House are convinced that we must balance the budget. But balancing the budget is not just about money it is about our children's future. For too long now, the Federal Government has operated in the red. The resulting debt is a threat to America's future generations that must be dealt with. So while Democrats offer class division and dance around the tough issues, Republicans offer a return to a balanced budget.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, what a difference this Republican majority has made. I think it is real simple. We did what we said we were going to do. It was promises made and promises kept. The American people like what they saw in the first 100 days, and the Republican majority is committed to keeping our promise with the American public, to balance the budget and make Government smaller and less costly and more efficient and more accountable to the people. But much remains to be done. Much of the heavy lifting remains to be done. Now we have to get to work, balancing this budget. We begin today.