Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. The contract goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept our promise; unfunded mandates legislation--we kept our promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise; Government regulatory reform--we kept our promise; and commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits--we are doing this now. And we have these items still to go: Welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle-income families; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this is a true story. A man in New York tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of a subway train? He survived, and then he sued the city for damages, and he won $1.2 million. This is just the type of case which tells why three-fourths of Americans say that the current liability lawsuit system is in need of major repair. The American people are sick and tired of our culture of victimization. Murderers go free because they were supposedly abused as children. A woman spills coffee on herself, and then she collects millions of dollars in punitive damages. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? This is no small matter. Frivolous lawsuits cost Americans $300 billion in higher prices and in lost wages, but we are going to reform this system, while ensuring that all those with legitimate grievances will have access to the justice system. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. The contract goes on to say that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept our promise: unfunded mandates legislation--we kept our promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise; Government regulatory reform--we kept our promise; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits--we are starting this today; And still to go: Welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle-income families; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without government penalty; congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the so-called political experts say do not respond to your opponents attacks, just ignore them. But in this case I just from the bitter defenders of the status quo who defend a welfare system that's bloated, scandal-ridden, and a huge waste of our hard-earned tax dollars. Forty years of Democrat control of the House brought us this failed welfare system and now they are defending it with all of their might. The truth is they have turned their backs on those who are less fortunate and then they blame Republicans for trying to undo the damage that they took 30 years to create. After spending billions of dollars on programs that have failed to work and after years of waging a phony war on poverty it is time for the defenders of the status quo to admit defeat and join us in creating a system that understands that true compassion is not measured in the number of our tax dollars spent on welfare, but in the number of Americans who are liberated from the grips of poverty.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot of griping from the other side of the aisle over Republican efforts to overhaul the current welfare system. It seems that every time Republicans suggest a positive idea for change, the Democrats immediately start yelling no. What I find interesting is that the Democrats have not introduced any legislation of their own. They have no bill. All they are doing is defending with all their might the status quo and the liberal welfare state that they built up over the last 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people want change. They are sick and tired of paying for a system that has produced failure, crime and decay. We have heard the voters, the mandate that they gave for smaller government, a less costly government, a more efficient government. By reforming welfare, we are giving the American people what they demand.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I find it incredible that some on the other side of the aisle are so adamant in defending and preserving the massive Federal bureaucracy that has grown over the years. Maybe it is understandable that they defend this huge bureaucracy since they created it. The challenge now is to reduce and simplify a government that has grown completely out of control. H.R. 926 aims to curb the ruinous practices of Federal agencies that unduly restrain the creative energies of small business. Small business is the backbone of America's economy. America's small businesses have had enough. They desperately need, in fact they are demanding immediately, that we relieve the overbearing regulatory agencies that have grown up. Opponents of H.R. 926 incorrectly assume that hardworking Americans and small businesses should bear the destructive brunt of the cost of this regulatory process. Nobody I know of in Cincinnati, especially small business owners, shares that opinion. If we want the regulatory process to be a burden, let us not make it a burden on small business; let us make it a burden on the Federal Government. Let us strengthen regulatory flexibility by giving aggrieved small businesses the ability to seek judicial review. Let us enlarge the public's role in the rulemaking process. Let us force regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory impact analyses. Let us protect Americans who report abusive practices of regulatory agencies from catastrophic reprisals. What does all this mean to the average American citizen? It means that when they go to the store, products will not be so expensive; they will be more in the reach of average Americans. It means jobs for American citizens, because so many of the jobs that are created in this country are created by small business. And most importantly, it means a better standard of living for the American people.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose President Clinton's Mexican bailout schemes and to support this factfinding resolution. Clinton administration know about Mexico, and when did they know it? Who are the private speculators who benefit from this deal? The American taxpayers have a substantial interest in this bailout, and they deserve some honest answers from this administration. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I frankly was appalled when high administration officials ducked our hearings on this scandal, but apparently they wanted to keep the public in the dark. The administration's handling of this matter smacks of a backroom deal. In fact, it stinks. President Clinton has tried to go behind our backs. So it is time to go over his head right to the American people. This House represents the taxpayers. We are responsible for spending decisions, or at least that is what the Constitution says. Let us win one for the American people. Pass this resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, after listening to some of my liberal colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would think that balancing the budget was like dreaming the impossible dream. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. We can balance our budget. We just need to act a little more responsibly. That is why I support the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It forces us to act a little more responsibly. One would think from the rhetoric of the liberal Democrats that balancing the budget means draconian cuts in the budget. Actually all we have to do is slow the rate of spending to an additional $2 trillion instead of $3 trillion in the next 7 years. The fearmongers are acting like we want to starve children. Ridiculous. We want to save our children's future. I encourage all of my colleagues, pass the balanced budget amendment now.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the balanced budget amendment is the most important piece of legislation passed by Congress in a long, long time. By passing this amendment we proved that we are serious about balancing the Federal budget, finally. We proved we are willing to do what millions of Americans do every day, live within their means. We said to the children of America: You will not have to pay off our debts. We will not mortgage your future. However, we cannot act alone. If the children of America are to grow up without the burden of our debts, the balanced budget amendment must be approved by the other body. How can anyone look into the eyes of a child and say, ``I don't care about your future, as long as I can keep things the way they are.''Mr. Speaker, I ask those opposed to a balanced budget amendment to remember who will pay the price if this budget is not balanced. The time for rhetoric has passed. Now is a time for action.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third, and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise. And here is what remains to be done in the next 50 days, Government regulatory reform; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle income families; Senior Citizens Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; commonsence legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits, and congressional terms limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7. First, let me commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for his leadership during the International Relations Committee's leadership during the International Relations Committee's consideration of H.R. 7. Our committee put considerable effort into the crafting of this legislation and I believe we've produced a sensible, responsible and much-needed effort to strengthen our national defense and set a clear, new national security policy. The America people have grave concerns about both the Clinton administration's weakening of our military and its haphazard foreign policy. The National Security Revitalization Act seeks to reverse the dangerous trend of the last two years and refocuses U.S. defense and foreign policy priorities. Mr. Chairman, when we pass H.R. 7, we will be keeping another promise we made to the American people. And it will serve as further notice that this Congress is serious about revitalizing and strengthening U.S. security policy. I urge support of H.R. 7.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for the great job he did in shepherding through the House the anticrime package we passed yesterday. Another important component of the contract has been completed. Now, the scene shifts to defense. When Bill Clinton ran for the Presidency, he promised to cut $60 billion from the Bush defense plan. Once in office, however, that pledge soon became like all the other Clinton promises, dead on arrival. Bill Clinton weakened our military strength by twice that amount. Pentagon's own audit, 3 of 12 divisions are no longer combat-ready. Yes, we must balance the budget, but not by dangerously weakening this country's defenses. We need to act now to reverse the steady decline our forces have endured since the leftover sixties flower children of the Clinton administration came to town, and act we will, starting today.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me preface my remarks by saying that I spent half of my political career prior to being here in Congress as a city official, being a Cincinnati city councilman. I spent the other half being a county commissioner, so I have seen both sides. What we have done in this bill, working with the gentleman's colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], is to come up with a formula here which sets out what we felt was a fair and equitable way for the parties to come up with a reasonable solution. We are not dictating to those jurisdictions what the exact formula should be. We are saying they should get together and work it out among themselves, if they come up with a situation where there is really an anomaly.

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman very articulately spelled out the reasons why this amendment is important. To use another example, in my community, the city of Cincinnati, when the city police officers make arrests, the criminals are basically then turned over to the county. The county prosecutes them, there are county judges and they are incarcerated at county expenses. So what we want to occur is some fairness and reasonableness, and for the city and the county to work together, and I think they will. I think the counties and the cities all across this country are very reasonable and will do that.

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

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, neither.

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, the thing that will drive them to cooperate is they would not get the money if they did not cooperate, so they would be receiving Federal dollars here for law enforcement that would benefit both the city and the county. It would be up to the city and the county to work together to come up with an agreement, because otherwise, Mr. Chairman, neither would get the money, so it is definitely to their advantage to come up with an agreement. We do not want to dictate exactly what that agreement needs to be, but it is in both of their interests.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, this amendment is also offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], who will also address the House. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a concern raised in our Committee on the Judiciary markup, and I have been working with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Many counties are responsible for administering the criminal justice system for all the other jurisdictions within their territory. They bear the costs of pretrial detention. They provide the county jails. They pay the prosecutors and the public defenders. And they are responsible for maintaining the courts and paying for the judges. Clearly, arrests made by jurisdictions within these counties have significant implications for county budgets. What this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is say that where the attorney general of a State, in his discretion, sees fit to certify that a county bears the bulk of prosecution or incarceration costs associated with violent crimes committed in a city within that county, and where the formula in this bill, nonetheless, allocates to one city government at least twice as much of the grant money, then the city and the county have to get together and agree on the ways that their combined grant money should be spent. The same situation would obtain where a number of cities within a county added together would be eligible for a total grant amount exceeding 400 percent of what the county would get. If the state attorney general determines that such a situation threatens the efficient administration of justice, then the cities and the counties would be required to work together. We do not change the allocation formula at all. But we do require that cities and counties work together when the allocation formula creates a real anomaly, which has occurred in a number of instances. These allocation anomalies can arise, Mr. Chairman, because while the bill part 1 violent crimes occurring within the different jurisdictions, some regions of the country report at the county level crimes that in other regions are reported at the city level. Thus, in some states, such as in Florida, the allocations between counties and cities appear roughly proportionate. Whereas in other states, such as my State, Ohio, there are some significant disparities between the jurisdictions that make the arrests and the jurisdictions that administer the justice after the arrests are made. Where such disparities occur, the common sense solution is that the affected cities and counties work together to ensure that proper coordination occurs. This amendment provides that cities and counties in this situation will apply jointly for the sums of money allocated them under the bill. And to that end, the amendment permits them to establish a joint local advisory board in satisfaction of the requirements of the bill. In keeping with the guiding principle of this legislation, we do not tell these localities how they must coordinate their efforts. We leave them to do that, and each affected area may establish such mechanisms and policies as their local officials see. Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment leaves the bill's allocation formula in place and does not affect the amount of grant monies that will go to any given state. It only applies to require county-city coordination when, first, the county pays the majority of the costs associated with prosecution or incarceration, and, second, the city, on the basis of these crimes, is allocated at least 200 percent of the amount allocated to the county or a group of cities allocates 400 percent of what their county allocates. I understand that this amendment has support of the chairman of the subcommittee, who along with the chairman of the subcommittee has done such an outstanding job working, quite frankly, night and day to get this legislation passed, to allow us to consider the criminal law reforms we have taken up over the last week. I urge its adoption, and I understand at this point that it does have bipartisan support, that both the leadership on our side of the aisle and also the leadership on the other side of the aisle is in agreement.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I will not use the 5 minutes in full. Mr. Chairman, the only point that I want to make is I think we all agree here that drug courts can be very effective. In my community, the city of Cincinnati in Hamilton County, we are just getting under way with the drug court. I fully support the drug court. I supported the gentleman from North Carolina's proposal that we make, clearly in the language in this bill, the drug courts, the money can be used for drug courts; we all agree on that. Where we differ is that the gentleman from Maryland would like to put another billion dollars of tax dollars to be spent. If we are going to actually move toward a balanced budget amendment, we have to be very careful, and for that reason I oppose an additional billion dollars. I also think that we should not earmark for particular programs. I think the local communities know best what works in those communities. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to give the flexibility to the local governments to decide how to spend those dollars, whether it is police officers, additional police officers, whether it is drug courts or whatever. Let us leave it up to the localities. I think they know better than the Federal Government does.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, crime in America is out of control. By the time I finish speaking, an American citizen will be robbed and two more will be assaulted. Someone will be a victim of rape within the next 4 minutes in this country, and before we move on to the legislative business at least one American will be murdered. Mr. Speaker, those statistics are scary. They scare the American people and they scare law enforcement officials. The only ones who are not scared are the criminals. year had so many strings that most State and local governments could not or would not accept them. Mr. Speaker, let us cut the strings, let us give local law enforcement officials the power to fight local crime. Let us pass H.R. 728 now, before one more American becomes just another statistic.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we had some figures that were thrown out before that allegedly indicated that a number of States would lose money, would lose prison money under this particular bill. Those figures are not accurate. Most of the States would actually gain a significant amount of money under this bill, and, therefore, we oppose the Schumer amendment. I think we also have to look at what is happening right now. Right now violent criminals are only serving one-third of their sentence, one-third. Murderers, what is happening with murderers in this country? Are most of them getting the death penalty? No. Are most of them getting life? Maybe they get the sentence but how much of the time do they actually serve? On average a little over 8 years, for murder in this country. So what this bill will do will help the States and encourage the States to incarcerate prisoners for a longer period of time because when these criminals are behind bars, they are not out on our streets terrorizing our citizens and committing more and more crimes. For that reason, I would strongly encourage that we vote down the Schumer amendment, that we pass this particular bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Henry Foster, is having a hard time remembering how many babies he has aborted. Last week, he said it was around a dozen. Yesterday, he thought it was more like 39. Now, to some folks who think that abortion is not such a big deal, I guess it would be easy to forget a few unborn babies here and there. But to those of us who put a higher value on human life, Dr. Foster's latest revelations are very disturbing. It's time for Dr. Foster to step aside. His evolving revelations of the last few days have destroyed his credibility his nomination remain in place, the debate will only become more acrimonious. And, frankly, after the embarrassing reign of Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, this country deserves better. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Foster should do the right thing and withdraw his name from consideration immediately. And, if he chooses not to, President Clinton should do the right thing and withdraw it for him.