Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina is very articulate and obviously feels very strongly about this particular subject. Many of us on this side of the aisle, however, feel very strongly as well. To address the issue of habeas corpus, the allegation is made that many on this side of the aisle want to attack the Constitution and that we are not really conservative because we are attacking the constitution. That is inaccurate. And there is a report that I would like to refer to at this time, the Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell recently chaired an ad hoc committee of Federal habeas corpus in capital cases. I would like to read a couple of sentences from that, because I think it really clears up some of the things that have been said here today. What it says is that, ``contrary to what may be assumed, the Constitution does not provide for federal habeas corpus review of state court decisions.'' The Constitution does not provide that. ``The writ of habeas corpus available to state prisoners is not that mentioned in the Constitution. It has evolved from a statute enacted by Congress, now codified in section 28 U.S.C. section 2254.'' So it is not an attack on the Constitution. What we are talking about is a revision, a change in statute that was enacted by this body. So this body is now taking appropriate action to change a previous statute. Mr. Chairman, let us look at what is really happening here. The people of this country feel very much the way I do, that the death penalty in this country is not being used to the degree that most people want it to be used. We have a death penalty on the books. There are many people, particularly of a liberal persuasion, who will say that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder, it is not a detterent to crime. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that if that is true, and I do not agree that that is true, but if it is true, it is because of the way the death penalty in this country has been carried out. That is, that people remain on death row for years and years and years. Let us just look at the case of John Wayne Gacy in Chicago. John Wayne Gacy, the killer clown who killed dozens of people and was stuffing them underneath his porch, underneath his basement, this man was on death row for 16 years, so for 16 years the taxpayers are keeping this gentleman alive, providing him with television, providing him with food, providing him with an attorney. It took 16 years to execute this individual. That is not that unusual in this country. People are on death row for 10 years, 12 years. The last execution we have had in my State, the State of Ohio, was in the early sixties. It has been over 30 years. I will sometimes have people in Ohio say, generally, again, of the liberal persuasion, they will tell me that the death penalty is not a deterrent. If it is not, it is because of the way that it has been carried out in this country. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that what we need to do is to have a fair appeals process, but an appeals process that is much shorter than what we have right now. I would submit that sometime in the near future I would like to see the death penalty process dramatically reduced to a year, 2 years, something like that. Even whether with what we are proposing here today it is still going to be much longer than what I would like to see it, but it is an improvement over what we have now. That is why I strongly support this measure and believe that it is time that we made the death penalty work in this country. If it does not work right now, it is because of the length of time that people remain on death row at taxpayer expense. The people in this country are sick and tired of paying for cable TV and paying for the food and lawyers for those that have killed innocent people. One final point I would like to make. The people it is really not fair to are the victims, those families of the people that were murdered, those innocent victims that have the appeals process come up, they have to go in and testify. It is like ripping open that wound, until the person is finally executed. It is time we had a fair and fast appeals process so that the death penalty really will be a deterrent. Then we are really protecting life in this country.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Latin phrase habeas corpus may cause people's eyes to glaze over, but the reforms in this bill begin to address what I consider to be the biggest problem in the Federal justice system, the seemingly unending string of appeals that convicted criminals may file to postpone again and again the day of final judgment. Mr. Chairman, there is no good reason for the taxpayers in my community, Cincinnati, or anywhere else to foot the bill for the John Wayne Gacys and other criminals in this world who have taken human life, innocent human life so they can play games with our legal system from their prison cells for year after year after year. There ought to come a point, Mr. Chairman, after a trial by a jury of one's peers and after going through the appeals process in the State court system and then finally the Federal court system where enough is finally enough. By moving forward on this bill, the Effective Death Penalty Act, we are fulfilling another element of the Contract With America. In doing so, we are also attempting to ensure that the death penalty is of more than academic interest to jailhouse lawyers. If the death penalty is to serve as a real deterrent, we must see that it is imposed fairly and surely--and reasonably swiftly. This bill is just a start, but it is a good start. Our colleagues should understand that the statutory habeas corpus provisions we are reforming today are not related to the habeas corpus protections contained in the Constitution. The constitutional protections apply to remedy lawless incarcerations by the executive without court authority; they do not deal with imprisonment ordered by State officials pursuant to court order after conviction at trial. But confusion over the shared Latin title should not confuse the issue: Our Constitution does not mandate, nor does common sense decree, today's system of virtually unlimited frivolous Federal appeals. Unlike the valuable protections our Constitution provides, today's statutory scheme as interpreted by the courts allows endless appeals after endless delays. If a decision ever is reached, the convicted criminal simply starts the process all over again on some other point. In effect, there is now no statute of limitations, and no finality of Federal review of State court convictions. The statutory habeas system is not rational, it's not just, and it's not followed by any other civilized nation. As former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell said in his review of our flawed process: ``I know of no other system of justice structured in a way that assures no end to the litigation of a criminal conviction.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill makes a start toward bringing victims of crime some closure to their ordeals. Some may not believe that this reform goes far enough, but it is reform, and I urge the bill's adoption and I urge defeat of the Schumer amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, let us also be clear that the person who is on death row, if we are talking the death penalty, and I am in this particular instance, that person was already convicted by his or her peers at a fair trial beyond a reasonable doubt. It has already gone through a fairly extensive appeals process. We are talking about another layer after they have gone through the State appeals, they are at the Federal appeals. I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] would probably agree that it does not make any sense for people to remain on death row for 10, 12, 16 years.

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, let us also be clear as to what has happened. A jury of one's peers has already

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

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, one point--and many points have been made on both sides--one point that has not been made is that every State has a Governor and the Governors have the final ability to commute a sentence. So if, in fact, one is arguing that at some point there is clearly an innocent person, the Governor can always commute the sentence. I would also submit that in many instances these folks that are dragging out this death penalty process kill other inmates, kill guards, and ultimately end up on the streets, sometimes, and kill innocent people.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page says it all, calling Clinton's budget Kevorkian accounting. It is dead on arrival. Did the President's budget show leadership? I do not think so. Courageous? Not. Again, quoting the Wall Street Journal, ``Mr. Clinton's budget is essentially a defense of the status quo.'' Mr. Speaker, we were not elected to this great body to defend the status quo. We were elected to this great body to reform Congress, to get this Nation's financial house in order, and to make Government leaner and less intrusive. We have made great progress, passing a balanced budget amendment, unfunded mandate reform, and just yesterday the line item veto. Despite our President, who has taken a walk with his budget presentation, we will make the tough choices which will lead to a balanced budget. For the sake of our children and our children's children, we must not fail. We must show the courage and leadership to balance the budget.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we've been told time and time again that spending has already been cut to the bone and that we can't cut anything without shredding the fabric of our society. Well, that's not true. All sorts of needless bureaucracies continue to waste all sorts of money and eat a hole in our wallets. Today, I'd like to call attention to one of the more egregious examples I've seen during my first month on the job. I am referring to the tripe that I and all my colleagues received this past week from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The NEH produced and sent around to us something called a Conversation Kit, more formally entitled a ``National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity.'' Inside you'll find 20 or so high-gloss pamphlets, some of them 30 or 40 pages long, that contain readings of varying quality, simplistic questions, and the Government's edicts on how folks should talk to each other. This is the brainchild of NEH Chairman Sheldon Hackney and his band of ``culture bureaucrats,'' as George Will has labeled them. Its basic assumption is that we, as free-thinking Americans, need the Government to tell us how to engage in day-to-day conversations. The plan, as I understand it, is for NEH-types to go around the country circulating these packets and instructing us all how to talk with one another. Besides assembling arcane questions such as ``When do we act as public people and when as private people?'' or the more abstract ``Where do we belong?'' the Conversation Kit suggests readings by militant feminists such as Patricia Williams and Charlotte Bunch, and provides a list of movies that, quote, ``might make good conversation starters.'' I must thank Mr. Hackney for spending our tax dollars to tell us about a little known film called ``Casablanca.'' So the American public can see first hand some of Mr. Hackney's handiwork, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a small excerpt from the Conversation Kit. Besides the kit's skewed content, every American should be outraged by the expense of printing these Conversation Kits. This particular program, I'm told, is going to cost us $1,700,000 just by itself. And remember, given our huge national debt, that's $1.7 million that we don't have and that we're charging to our children's accounts. Mr. Speaker, the NEH again has thrust the Federal Government into another venture in which it does not belong. And once again, we see the Federal Government pushing its inane, self-righteous agenda on the American public. These conversation kits maybe politically correct, but they're fiscally foolish. They're also insulting to the intelligence of our citizens. America's filled with sensible, kind, and intelligent people who know how to talk with one another. The last thing we need is a group of condescending academics squandering our tax dollars to tell us how to talk to each other. This is not the proper role of the Federal Government and we need to end, forever, this type of wasteful spending. That's why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring Congressman Joe Hefley's bill, The Privatization of fiefdom. The critics and the naysayers believe we cannot balance the budget. Well, here's a golden opportunity to begin that process by trimming $177 million of fat from the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information: Appendix A checklist for conversation planning People: Do you need to contact organizations that can help you assemble a planning committee and find participants for the conversation? Does your planning committee have the same racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity as the people you hope will participate? Have you divided responsibilities among committee members? Have you identified an effective discussion leader? Have you appointed someone to take notes or tape-record each session? Have you personally invited the participants or responded to them personally after they have expressed interests in joining the conversation? Have you sent information and directions to participants several days before the first session? Have you made reminder phone calls to participants one or two days before each session? Content: Have you decided how to focus your discussion? if there will be more than one session, have you identified all the topics? Or will participants choose the later topics at the first session? Have you selected the materials--e.g., readings, videos, conversation starters, Scholars' Essays, news clips--for each session? How will you use the materials? How will you distribute them? Have you considered inviting an expert to provide background information for the discussion? Format: Have you chosen an appropriate conversation format (number, length, and frequency of sessions)? Do you have an agenda, including time for opening remarks, introductions, and ground rules? Is the discussion leader familiar with the reading materials and the makeup of the group?

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton amendment which I believe will best protect the American taxpayer. Since this House last voted on a balanced budget amendment, just 10 months ago, before I got here, I might add, the national debt has increased by $160 billion, less than a year, $160 billion. That is a whole lot of debt. Well, it is time we had the courage to do something about it. It is time we passed a balanced budget amendment. many of their hard-earned dollars to this city. We must pass a balanced budget amendment now. I support balancing the budget by cutting spending, not by raising taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have read a few news reports in recent days that suggest the Republicans are cooling on their commitment to the Contract With America. Let me just say, speaking for this newly elected Republican Congress, that just ain't so. Any reports that the Republican majority is backing away from the contract is wishful thinking on the part of those who support the status quo. The fact is the new Republican majority is here to bring revolutionary change to the Congress. The Congressional Accountability Act has already been signed into law, making applicable to Congress laws from which Congress had exempted itself for years. We will soon pass the bill to restrain unfunded mandates. Later this week or next we will take up and pass a balanced budget amendment containing, I fervently hope, a restriction on additional taxes. One by one we will work our way through the contract and fulfill our pledge to the American people. Mr. Speaker, the Washington establishment and many of the guardians of the old order in this House may wish that the Republican majority failed, but we will not. The American people will not allow it to happen.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Clinger, and the members of the committee for the great work they have done in bringing this important bill to the floor. And I want to pay special tribute to a couple of Ohioans who have played a critical role in bringing the issue of unfunded mandates to the attention of the American people, our great Governor, George Voinovich, and my colleague and very good friend, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Mr. Portman. With his usual skill, insight and diligence, Rob Portman has made this crucial reform possible. As a former city councilman and county commissioner, I can tell you that for far too long the Federal Government has imposed its regulatory whims on the State and local governments. Like it or not, fiscally battered or not, our State and local governments have been forced to comply. Let us be frank: Federal politicians have loved unfunded mandates because they are a way of putting huge new regulatory programs in place while secretly passing the tab along to the States and local governments. They have been taxing and spending while keeping the taxing part hidden. Local officials know the story all too well. Too often they find that they must reprioritize local spending needs because Washington has given them another mandate that they just cannot afford. Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 5, the party is over. Congress finally takes a giant step in the right direction. Congress finally takes responsibility for its actions and begins to treat State and local governments like partners, not like subordinates. If we are going to impose new costs, we ought to at least be honest about it, and we ought to be on the record, and usually we ought not to do it at all. I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded on the principle that no person is above the law. It is more than shameful--it is worse than outrageous--that Congress routinely has exempted itself from the laws that others must obey. From the labor laws enacted in 1938, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to OSHA--Congress has said: ``These laws apply to others, but not to us. Not to us.'' At long last, these exemptions are going to stop. Finally, we're going to recognize that if a law is good enough to apply to the American people, then by golly, it's good enough to apply to Congress. And if any law isn't good enough to apply to Congress, then certainly it's not good enough to apply to everyone else. When Congress has to live by the laws it passes, then Congress will take care to pass better laws. I urge support for the rule.