Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to provide tax relief for all Americans, especially for our senior citizens. Today our grandparents are used as money trees by the Federal Government. Instead of treating our elders with respect, our Government has come to look at them as just another tax target. For instance, the earnings limit imposed on working seniors actually discourages work. The tax is so unfair that if a senior citizens earns over $11,000 in a year, he or she will be assessed a marginal tax rate of 56 percent. That is 56 percent; that is ridiculous. This rate is twice the rate that millionaires pay. Excuse me, but I think there is something wrong with this picture. In our Contract with America, Republicans promised to reduce the tax burden imposed on senior citizens. We are committed to tax fairness and to protecting our grandparents. We owe it to those who fought the wars, raised the families, and built the Nation to protect them from an out- of-control Federal Government bent on taxing the American people into the poorhouse. Let us cut taxes now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Good morning. My name is Steve, and I am a tax cutter. I never realized I had a problem with this compulsion when I was back home in the real world, but, when I landed inside the beltway, I knew I was in real trouble. I had always believed that we should let working Americans keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. I had always thought we ought to give senior citizens in this country a break. I thought I was normal, but then I came to Washington, and the liberals and the bureaucrats have tried to show me the error of my ways. They have tried to convince me that the money I always thought belonged to the taxpayers really belongs to the Federal Government. They tried to convince me that bureaucrats know best, more better than what the working men and women of this country do. They think that bureaucrats are smarter than the folks back home. Well, that is baloney. Maybe being a tax cutter is not so bad. In fact, doggone it, I am proud to be a tax cutter. Let us cut taxes like the Republicans want to do this week.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the minority leader, a Democrat, made an interesting statement the other day. Referring to the tax cut bill that we will consider this week he said, ``This issue,'' meaning taxes, ``may be the best expression of the differences between the parties,'' and you know he is probably right. Republicans understand that the American people are overtaxed. We Republicans understand that the tax burden that the Government imposes on families and on senior citizens is becoming simply intolerable. We understand, and we are taking a first step to reduce that burden, to reduce taxes. That is a big difference from the last Congress when the Democrats were in charge, when President Clinton was able to ram through the biggest tax increase in American history. Well, there is a new majority here now, and I say, ``You're right, Mr. Minority Leader.'' This new majority leader does seek to cut taxes. We are tired of seeing our Government throwing money around and expecting working families to pick up the tab. The most devastating change in the Federal tax system over my lifetime has been that Government has shifted the tax burden so heavily onto the backs of working families. The tax code now discriminates against families. It penalizes marriage, and it burdens parents trying to care for their own children. In fact, during my lifetime, and I'm 41 years old--actually 42 now-- the Federal income tax burden on a family of four has increased by over 300 percent as a share of family income. That is outrageous. It threatens the very foundation of the American dream. It denies opportunity to people trying to work their way up. The Government has been imposing a hidden tax increase on families every year by holding down the exemption that parents can take for dependent children. Right now a lot of you at home are probably working on your income taxes or thinking about it, and you probably know, in looking at the taxes all this year, that you can claim $2,450, almost $2,500 per person in your family as an income tax exemption. Well, if that rate had gone up to match inflation, that exemption would now be $8,000, $8,000, and we can only claim $2,450. Mr. Speaker, that is just not fair, but, despite that fact, there are some in this body who would begrudge parents even a $500 per child tax credit, and that is sad, and they call us mean spirited. Well, we ought to remember that it is not our money. We are proposing allowing families to keep a little bit more of the money that they themselves earn. We should not act like it is a gift or a handout; it is not. It is simple fairness. So, too, is the rollback we propose of the 1993 recordbreaking tax increase on senior citizens. Seniors were unfairly singled out for punitive treatment. We are going to undo that, and we are going to provide relief from the unwise earnings limit that insidiously taxes seniors who choose to continue working. We are also going to reduce the marriage tax penalty. We have just been through a long debate over outdated welfare policies that tear families apart, and we voted for reform there. Let us reform the tax system's ridiculous marriage penalty as well. Now opponents of tax reform who do not think that the American people are overtaxed argue that you cannot have take both tax relief and a balanced budget. Quite frankly, some of them do not seem to want either goal, judging from their votes, but I believe that we have got to send a message that Government just cannot continue to increase spending at the rate that it has. Government spending is out of control. That does not mean that taxes are too low. Quite the reverse. We just spend too much up here in Washington. We also need to reduce capital gains taxes so that we can create more jobs. There are still a lot of people in this country who need jobs. If we cut capital gains taxes, that will mean more jobs for Americans. The old class-warfare arguments for keeping capital gains rates high will not wash anymore. Productive investment, whether in a home or in job- creating business is something that everyone should want to encourage, and nearly 60 percent of capital gains tax filers have adjusted gross incomes under $50,000, so it is not just tax breaks for the wealthy. So, please, let us not try to divide Americans up and pit one group against another anymore. We are all in this together, and, as a people, we are overtaxed. We need to cut taxes, we need to cut taxes on the American family, and we are going to do that this week.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it the Democrats failed to give the American people what they wanted by voting no on term limits last night. Over 82 percent of the Republicans voted for term limits while only 18 percent of the Democrats did. Even though my Democrat colleagues overwhelmingly voted no last night, I hope they will join us in a bipartisan fashion as we consider our last contract item, tax relief for families, senior citizens, and middle-income Americans. Out of all the legislation we have voted for since January 4, this legislation is what the American people need most of all. Let us allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money. Let us stop the money-hungry Government from taking so much from American paychecks. Let us pass tax relief now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I do not see how anyone could have watched the debate over welfare reform last week and not come away in favor of term limits. Even though just about everybody agrees that the current welfare system is a mess, in fact, an abysmal failure, we saw last week the architects of the present welfare system stream to this floor to denounce attempts at reform. Sure, they couched their opposition in politically correct terms. They have learned how to do that around here. We do need change, they admit, just not this change. The very people who fought the hardest against welfare reform were the same Members who for decades have voted to fund and expand the welfare monstrosity. Some folks seem to be a little too proud of their handiwork and a little too close to the bureaucracies they have built. Mr. Speaker, last week we set term limits on welfare recipients. Now we ought to set term limits on the group that created the welfare mess in this country in the first place.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton was a candidate, he promised to end welfare as we know it. But for the past 2 years, neither the President nor the Democrat-controlled Congress did a thing to change the welfare mess. Then came November, and the American people said it is time for a change. Now the Republican majority is doing something that the Democrats could never bring themselves to do. We are changing the current broken-down welfare system that traps people in a hopeless cycle of dependence into a system that offers hope for the future. Tough work requirements, personal responsibility, and emphasis on the family. The change is here.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a direct quote, what one of our former Presidents said about welfare. Here is what he said: The lessons of history show conclusively the continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally disruptive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. Now some of my liberal Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle would probably call that statement mean spirited. But do you know who said that? Which one of our Presidents? Well, he was a Democrat. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was speaking to Congress, and he was absolutely right. Sadly, Congress did not listen. Instead the Federal welfare monstrosity tore families apart. It destroyed individual initiative and mocked the concept of personal responsibility. It has become the narcotic, the destroyer of the human spirit, that Franklin Roosevelt decried. The welfare system has trapped millions upon millions of Americans in a snare of dependency. Generation after generation of people in this country never work. They get a welfare check every month, and they live off those Americans who do work. It is an absolute disgrace, in fact. And here may be the saddest fact of all. Innocent children born into the welfare habit are 300 percent more likely than others to be on welfare when they grow up. We have kids all over this country who grow up in homes where they never see an adult in the home go to work. But I refuse to believe that we should write off entire generations and consign them forever to desperate and unproductive lives. As terrible and as horrifying as it is, there are some politicians who have a vested interest in perpetuating the current system of handouts. This determination to hold people down is sickening, but the huge Federal welfare bureaucracy has real political power. The architects of the current disgraceful system fight hard to keep what they have created, and those who have been complicit in creating the cycle of dependence that is our current welfare system simply do not want to see any changes at all. When those of us who are working for reform propose some initial efforts to and shut up. Well, Mr. Speaker, we will not sit down, and we will not shut up. We are going to stand up for the hopes of future generations. We are going to speak out on behalf of victims of the current system, both recipients, yes, and the taxpayers. If the only coherent, straightforward argument made against welfare reform is the two command words to shut up, then maybe the protectors of the present system ought to consider at least getting out of the way. The intellectual wellspring of the status quo seems to have run dry after a torrent of rhetoric and $5 trillion of taxpayer money spent over the last 30 years on this ridiculous system of welfare that we have. The nay sayers simply have not made the case for protecting a bureaucratic Federal welfare system that penalizes work and rewards irresponsibility and writes off whole segments of our community. So this Congress, I hope, is finally prepared to pass welfare reform. This bill is based upon true compassion. It has the work requirement. It protects children. It seeks to discourage teenage sex and to crack down on deadbeat dads who want the Government to take the responsibilities for kids that they produce. They ought to own up and pay for these kids themselves. These deadbeat dads have been getting off for far too long. Our welfare reform eliminates taxpayer-financed subsidy payments for drug addicts and alcoholics. We have been paying drug addicts and alcoholics welfare benefits and SSI benefits. It is disgraceful. Importantly, it ends discrimination in adoption. It is time for welfare reform. It is long overdue. We are finally going to pass this tomorrow.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. That is exactly what has happened. As my colleagues know, it really started getting out of control during the so-called Great Society, the Lyndon Johnson years in the sixties, and it has grown worse, and worse, and worse, and illegitimacy has grown in tremendous numbers since that time as have welfare payments. They have both been pretty consistently going up, and you know the real tragedy of the way the current system works now is basically our government, under the way welfare works, it makes a deal with welfare mothers all over this country. I says: ``We'll send you a check every month. We'll get you food stamps, free housing, free cash money. You got to do two things though to get this money. No. 1, you got to not work. You're not allowed to work. And the other thing: You can't get married to anybody who works.'' Mr. Speaker, that is just a prescription for tragedy, and that is what happened in this country, and that is what we are going to change starting tomorrow.

Mr. CHABOT. That is an excellent point. The thing that really gets me is when you think of the average middle-class families out there where sometimes one parent, sometimes both parents are working, they are trying to rase their kids, they are obeying the laws, they are paying their taxes and so much of their money comes up here to Washington or in some instances goes to the State capitals. But it goes to government. And then in our welfare system we then send those dollars back to people who basically are not supporting their own kids. And as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] had said, so many of these fathers are going around fathering kids and are just assuming somebody else is going to take care of their kids. Because that is the way it works, quite frankly. Let us fact it. They are fathering kids now, and they are not supporting those kids, and we are doing it. The taxpayers, the middle-class people out there, are paying higher taxes so they cannot take care of their families to the degree they want to because they are sending their money up here to Washington. I was watching a program a couple of weeks ago, it was 48 Hours, on welfare reform. I found an excellent segment on there. They had a young woman, single mother in a wheelchair. This woman was working two jobs to support her own kids, and she was saying, ``I would not go on welfare. I am going to work as hard as I can. I am going to support my own kids.'' But the thing that she was complaining about was that so much of her money was taken in taxes and given to other people who would not support their own kids. That is not fair. That is what is wrong with the system. That is why we have got to fix it. And we begin to do that tomorrow when we finally vote for welfare reform.

Mr. CHABOT. I have heard this, and I think your points are absolutely correct, J.D., and I know we are almost out of time, so we probably need to wrap it up. I guess a couple points I want to make. One thing is I have heard the term mean-spirited so many times the last couple of days from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if I hear it one more time I think I am going to scream. But I think there is no question in my mind that there could be nothing more mean-spirited to the kids of this country than the welfare system that we have got now. It destroys lives; it will continue to do so until we change it. We are ready finally to change it. The school lunch program, they still keep saying, I heard it tonight, that we are going to cut the school lunch program. We are increasing the funding to the school lunch programs all across this country. What we are doing is we are cutting out the bureaucrats here in Washington, and we are sending the money directly to the States. Let the school teachers and the local school boards and the parents decide how they want to spend their own money. Not our money, their money. Finally, I think the bottom line, and I have only been here 2 months, but what I have seen from my colleagues such as the gentlemen that are here this evening, the difference I think between this side and the folks on the other side of the aisle, is the bottom line is the folks on the other side over there think that Washington knows best, that the decisions ought to be made up here where we are tonight. We ought to decide how the American people's money should be spent, that Washington knows better than the people all over this country. I do not believe that. I think the decisions should be made and those families, the moms and dads ought to decide how they want to spend money for their kids, not the bureaucrats up here in Washington. Despite all the rhetoric I have heard, calling us mean spirited, we do not care about kids, for God's sake, I have kids myself, a 5-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter, probably in bed right now so they cannot hear me talking, hopefully, because they have school tomorrow, but I think the American people can see through all this rhetoric.

Mr. CHABOT. I think the American people are a whole lot smarter than the people on the other side of the aisle give them credit for.

Mr. CHABOT. That is exactly right. Of course, that is the same President who told us he was going to give us a middle-class tax cut and then did just the opposite and raised taxes on the American people. That is one reason that the American people said enough and changed Congress and sent folks like us here to change Congress.

Mr. CHABOT. I believe it was our President who said that in the campaign a couple of years ago.

Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank my good friend from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], for yielding this time. What we are going to be doing is discussing the welfare system in this country and why Republicans and some Democrats as well believe that the welfare has been so destructive in this country that we feel very strongly that we need to change the welfare system dramatically. We have heard a lot of Democrats this week, and in fact since I have been a Member of Congress, be cute when they refer to the Contract With America, and they keep saying it is a Contract On America, which is ludicrous. It is a Contract With America. This is a document that we all signed. After talking with people all across this country, and they said these are the things that we want. If we elect a majority of Republicans, these are the things we would like you to change when you get there. Well, the people in my district saw fit to send me here, and one of the main things they wanted to change was the welfare system. They realized, I heard over and over again, that the welfare system is wrong. We spend far too much money on welfare, and most of that money is counterproductive. We are hurting more people than we are helping on welfare. I was a school teacher in Cincinnati for a number of years in an inner city school. I worked for the recreation department in an inner city area, and I saw kids over and over and over again who came from homes where there was no father in the home. The vast majority of these families did not have a father in the home. They had the government, in effect, as their father. The Federal Government sent a welfare check every month. No father in the home, no father figure. They expected the government to pay for them from basically from cradle to grave, and that is what we have to change. We have got kids in homes all across this country who never see an adult in the home go to work. We have to change that. The welfare system is broken. What I think we are hearing on the other side of the aisle, what we have been hearing the past couple of days from particularly the liberal Democrats on the other side of the aisle is the last gasps of a dying philosophy, a philosophy that says the government is the way to go, the government owes everybody a living, people do not have to work, people do not have to be responsible for their own lives, American families are to support other people's kids. Not only do they have to support their own kids, but the Federal Government takes a large portion of their money, sends it up here to Washington, it gets eaten up in this bureaucracy, this welfare bureaucracy. Some of it gets sent back to the States, and much of that money is wasted, and it is counterproductive. We have to change that, and that is what we are here to talk about this evening. I am very pleased that I am joined here by my good friend from Ohio [Martin Hoke], and a very good friend from Arizona [J.D. Hayworth], who are also going to contribute and talk in this colloquy.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, one of our liberal Democratic colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], said during the general debate Tuesday that the welfare system was originally conceived to help children. If that is the case, there has never been a clearer example of unintended consequences. For it is a sad fact that the current welfare system has been a disaster for children. Study after study shows that children on welfare do worse in school, are more likely to have other developmental problems, and are three times as likely as the average child to end up on welfare themselves. Yet my liberal colleagues constantly parade to the floor to defend a system, their system, that has produced nothing but misery. What do the liberals have against work? What do they have against personal responsibility? Why do they defend a system that has resulted in an explosion of illegitimacy in this country? The American people are fed up with an immoral system that rewards personally destructive behavior. But this week, we finally begin to change the welfare system.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, our opponents call us cruel and mean spirited for wanting to overhaul the welfare system. I cannot think of anything crueler or more mean spirited or quite frankly more cynical than the system that we have now. Make no mistake, it is the welfare system we have got that is cruel and mean spirited and everyone here know it. Yet because of the huge clout that the gigantic Federal welfare bureaucracy has, there are some politicians who will do anything, who will say anything, in order to frustrate reform. I have worked in an inner-city recreation center. I have taught in an inner-city school in Cincinnati. In those jobs, I have seen the devastation that the welfare system brings. Don't tell me we have to give up on these kids. We need to completely overhaul the welfare system now, and we begin today.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we begin today to discuss the debate the Republican welfare reform plan. Now, our Democrat colleagues have tried to put their own negative spin on our plan. However, they still have not got it quite right. Let me explain the entire bill in a few simple words: Work, family, personal responsibility, and hope for the future. Now, how hard is that to understand? Republicans are going to replace a failed system of despair with a more compassionate solution that will work to get people off the public dole. Through the dignity of work and the strength of families, we will offer hope for the future of millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, the time has come finally to completely overhaul the welfare system.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of burning in tax hell. For a generation now, American families and businesses have become virtual money trees for liberal Democrats. In order to finance their loony leftwing redistribution programs, Democrats have left no area of American life untouched. Virtually every facet of life is now taxed. Americans today face Federal, State, and local income taxes and they have to pay tolls, fees, FICA, social security, capital gains, sales taxes, and on and on. On top of all this, Americans get very little in return, except a request for more, and a warning from Democrats that they are insensitive to the plight of others. No wonder Americans are fed up with Government. Most Americans now pay 25 cents to 40 cents out of every dollar that they earn and if we do not do something about this soon, they will be paying 84 cents out of every dollar in taxes. Mr. Speaker, the American people voted for the Republican majority to reduce taxes and cut spending and we are going to do it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, you will hear a lot of whining, weeping, and gnashing of teeth on the other side of the aisle in the coming days. You see, the liberal Democrats just cannot accept that under our Republican tax relief plan, Americans will actually be allowed to keep more of their own money. The liberal Democrats think all money belongs to the Government. They think the Government needs the money more than working families do. They think Government does a better job of spending your money than you do. And they cannot accept that the bloated bureaucracy will be reduced to pay for much-needed tax relief. They think Government should be even bigger. They think Government does just a wonderful job of delivering services. They think the Government needs a raise. But Republicans will put Government on a diet. We will read every page, check every line, and challenge every figure in a search to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. This is nothing less than a fight to preserve the American dream for our children. And we will deliver.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, last week President Clinton visited Patrick Henry Elementary School in Alexandria, VA, to have a bite to eat. He dined on federally subsidized beef tacos and coleslaw and corn and fruit. The point of his visit was to try to convince the American people that the Personal Responsibility Act would slash the money that funds the current school lunch programs. Frankly, that is a lot of suckatash. The President and those who oppose welfare reform are not telling the truth to the American people. The Personal Responsibility Act would direct that money to go where it is most needed, away from the Washington bureaucrats and toward low income children. The idea is to help those who have the greatest need. I apologize for injecting real facts into this otherwise lively debate, but let us look at the numbers. In 1994, the Federal appropriation for the school lunch program was $4.3 billion. The Personal Responsibility Act would allocate block grants to the States of $6.7 billion next year, rising to $7.8 billion in the year 2000. So funding for school lunch programs will increase by 4.5 percent each year over the next 5 years. Let me repeat that again. School lunch programs will increase by 4.5 percent each year. Now, people can argue about whether that is good or bad public policy, but, please, do not mislead the public by calling it a cut. There has never been a time during this debate when those of us who favor welfare reform have voted for decreasing spending for school lunch programs. Our intent is to better serve children, not the Washington bureaucrats. How does this bill work? We will transfer power away from the Federal food bureaucrats in Washington and give more authority to the States where it belongs. At the same time, we will focus the program more efficiently to ensure that at least 80 percent of the money goes to children from low income families. States will have the flexibility to use the grant funds to support what they find to be the best programs for their individual school districts. They can decide how to meet the needs of children and families in their areas. This plan makes school nutrition programs easier to operate and more cost-effective by reducing paperwork. It caps administrative costs at 2 percent, and it helps ensure that meals are appealing to children by allowing greater choice at the regional and local level. We are not cutting funds for our children; we are eliminating the Federal bureaucrat as the middleman. Federally funded beef tacos may be what we have become accustomed to, but the diet we have become accustomed to here in Washington is not necessarily healthy for the American people. The States should have the opportunity to see if they can feed more children more efficiently with more money. That is what we propose to do. Frankly, as a parent myself, it makes a lot more sense to me for someone to be able to talk directly with his or her local school board about school lunches than it does to have to speak to the Agriculture Department or Committee on Agriculture here in Washington. It is not as through Federal overmanagement makes beef tacos, coleslaw, corn and fruit taste better. I hope that those who are so wedded to the present system finally will begin to tell the truth to the American people. The debate becomes clearer when it is understood all the distortions and false accusations are coming from people who understand that we are not proposing state school lunch cuts, but they want to avoid the real cuts other unrelated programs later on. But opponents want to preserve the country's huge welfare state, so they launch this fear attack now as a preemptive strike. Well, my view is while we need nutritious lunches in our schools, we need a whole lot less baloney here in Washington.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, score another victory for the American consumer. Today this House, after years of failure, will finally bring about common sense legal reform. Another promise kept by the new Republican majority, and soon we will keep another promise. We will again honor our Contract With America by passing real welfare reform. We will pass this legislation with the help of people. People on welfare need to break the bonds of dependency. They need hope, not a handout. We will send a clear message that those who are able to work will work to support themselves and their families. Those who can work but will not will no longer get a free ride at the expense of those who have traditionally footed the bill. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days we will hear more of the same from our liberal friends. There will be whining and weeping and gnashing of teeth. They will play fast and loose with the truth. But we will fight. We will fight for real welfare reform. It is time that the hard-working taxpayers of this country finally get a break. It is time for welfare reform. We will finally deliver that to the American people, who have been demanding it for such a long time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a confession. There was a time in my life when I was a member of both the American Bar Association and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. But I resigned from both organizations some years ago when I came to realize that the interests of the legal elite do not always coincide with the public interest. I am happy to say that redemption is possible, and I am here to urge courage in the fight for legal reforms. Now, I can also tell my colleagues that not all trial layers are bad, at least most of them are not. They serve a necessary function in our society and no one here is arguing to put them out of business. Granted there are some lawyers who are convinced that their lifestyle depends upon defending every excess of the tort system, no matter how senseless, no matter how much it adds to the cost of everyday goods and services. But we are on the side of the ordinary people of this country, the consumers. Maybe our response to the lawyers who do not like these reforms is: If you do not like it, sue us.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. It makes no sense to allow punitive damages against companies that have acted in good faith and gotten the FDA's approval. Most importantly, this amendment will help those who truly need help the most, those who need drugs which otherwise would probably not come on the market at all to relieve agonizing pain and those who need drugs which may preserve life itself.