Ron Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the most frightening thing today is the fact that we have a President that is not leading, but that he engages in fear tactics to scare the elderly about Medicare, when the fact is there is only 2 percent difference in the Medicare plan that we have and what the President has, $138 difference over a whole year in the year 2002. The fact of the matter is the President is not concerned about Medicare, he is concerned about AmeriCorps, he is concerned about all the liberal social programs that he wants to spend dollars on and bankrupt our economy and not provide a future for our children. Mr. Speaker, it is time the President starts to lead us into the 21st century and save this Nation from economic disaster. It is time to save the future for my 13-year-old daughter and my 24-year-old son. It is time for the President to be the President and lead this Nation and do the right thing.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a second?

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I listened to the President in his news conference, and he was talking about essentially in the same way and with the same terms as the previous speaker about extreme freshmen, 73 individuals that are holding up the Government, and you know it is the same old story: the blame game. By the way, I remember a President by the name of John F. Kennedy, and I remember when the Bay of Pigs tragedy happened, and President Kennedy stood up and said, ``I take the blame, the buck stops here.'' But what I heard from President Clinton today was that it is the freshmen that are causing this problem, those extremists. It reminded me not too long ago when we had the tragedy in Waco. The President said, ``It is not my fault,'' and the Attorney General had to take the blame. He is never to blame. It is never his fault. He has offered four budgets that do not keep his word with CBO scoring, but it is not his fault. There were three bills on his desk that he could have signed that would have got the Government up and running again, Commerce, Interior, and VA-HUD, that would have put the people back to work, but he vetoed them, and he blames the freshmen. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about those extreme freshmen just for a minute. What is extreme, and I asked this the other day, what is extreme about wanting a balanced budget in 7 years? Seven years, not tomorrow, not next year, not 2 years from now, but 7 years. A glidepath for 7 years that is going to actually spend basically $3 billion more than what we are spending now. There are no cuts. We are going to be spending more money. As I said, a glidepath towards a balanced budget that will provide a future for our children and our grandchildren, that will not allow this country to go bankrupt. What is extreme about that? Trying to save the economic viability of this country. Medicare. The President said we are extremists, that we are going to cut, slash, kill Medicare. There is only a 2-percent difference between the Republican plan and the President's plan. Basically $138 difference over a year period of time in the year 2002 on what would be spent per individual. What are we talking about here when we are talking about extremists and radicals? Individuals that want to save Medicare for their mothers and fathers. My mother and father are 78 years old. I want to save Medicare. Why would I do anything to hurt the most precious people that I know? I do not know when this rhetoric is going to stop, but it is time that we get serious about balancing the budget. It is time we do have serious negotiations, but the President is not willing. He is the one that is not willing. He is the one that broke it off last night. He is the one that said, in one instance through the Vice President, that, ``Well, we cannot go specifically by the CBO. We have to have other numbers in there.'' Then he comes back later and he said, ``That was not what we meant. We are willing to go by CBO scores now.'' What are we dealing with here? Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, I wish the President would just come forth, put a budget on the table that would provide for a balanced budget in 7 years and that would allow the CBO to score it to see if the numbers are right. I think we would be willing to then look at, what is he talking about, Medicare and taxes? We are willing to look.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the fourth Clinton budget is before us. Once again, it continues to rob our children and grandchildren because it doesn't balance. Once again, it does not abide by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projections. Once again, it breaks Clinton's promise to use CBO numbers--because they're more accurate than those cooked up by White House appointees. And once again, Mr. Speaker, a Clinton budget will lose badly on the House floor. Bill Clinton has not told the truth about our effort to balance the budget. The fact is, the only condition we are holding him to during the current stalemate is that he use real, honest, nonpartisan CBO numbers. That's all. He already promised to do that, both in his first State of the Union Address and in the last continuing resolution. Those on the far left side of the aisle use the word ``extremists'' almost daily. Mr. Speaker, it's not extremism to care more about the next generation than the next election. And it's not extremism to follow through on promises like balancing the budget and saving Medicare. The only extremism I see comes from people who don't keep their word and demagogue honest efforts to do the right thing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell a story this evening. I will keep it short though it could last for hours. It is called a Tale of Two Presidents, a President in 1992 and 1993 and now a different President in 1993. Two years ago the President and his top health care specialist, Hillary Rodham Clinton, told the American people again and again, we are talking about beginning to reduce the rate of increase in Medicare from about 11 percent annually to about 6 or 7 percent increase annually. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton told Americans again and again, do not let people tell you these are cuts in Medicare. All we are doing is slowing the rate of increase. That is not a cut. Remember those words very carefully because my colleagues are about to hear them again. Bill Clinton wanted to use those Medicare savings he was talking about in 1993 to help pay for his Government-run health care scheme. Now let us move forward to early 1995. Medicare board of trustees reports Medicare part A will be bankrupt in 2002. The trustees, four of whom are Clinton appointees, also say Medicare part B was growing at an unsustainable rate. So this Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, which included a plan to save Medicare for another decade. The plan slowed the rate of growth to more than 7 percent annually. Remember, the President said 2 years ago, that is not a cut. But guess what Bill Clinton has to say about essentially the same idea today? He said, Republicans want to destroy, devastate and dismantle Medicare. He is talking about terrible cuts now. What happened to the President that was talking about slowing the rate of growth just 2 years ago? The Republican plan increases spending per senior from $4800 to $7100 in the year 2002. There are no cuts though the rate of spending increases are slowed slightly. The Clinton plan would increase spending per senior to $7200 in the year 2002. That is a 2 percent differences, or little more than $100 a year 7 years from now. Remember, the President's Medicare proposal is not of a balanced budget, because even though he submitted four of them, none of them balance. More on that a little bit later. Yet, Bill Clinton's accusations against the Republicans, that we are trying to destroy Medicare, the Nation's top elected official is telling these fictitious stories to the American people. Our President, our leader, the one on whom we depend to lead us through times of crisis and through times of need, is not coming forth and telling the American people what he was saying just 2 years ago, that we are not going to devastate Medicare. We are not cutting Medicare. We are slowing the rate of growth. He and Mrs. Clinton said 2 years ago, do not let them tell you that we are cutting. Well, do not let them tell you today that we are cutting Medicare. Let us talk about Medicare part A premiums. Seniors now pay $47 a month for part A premiums, and Bill Clinton and liberal Democrats have blasted Republicans and said they are doubling Medicare premiums. First of all, as every senior knows, Medicare part A premiums rise about almost every year. Even Bill Clinton and liberal Democrats know this. The Republican plan would see premiums rise from $47 to $87 a month in the year 2002. That is an increase, though it is not a doubling of the premium. But here is the punch line: The President's plan would cost only $4 less per month than what we are proposing. Bill Clinton says Republicans want to destroy Medicare, but the premiums in this plan are $83 instead of $87. That is 13 cents a day difference. It gets worse. Most of this year we have heard Bill Clinton and other liberals accuse Republicans of trying to force seniors into managed care plans--even though every senior could remain in the current plan just as it is. They have also blasted our innovative proposals like medical savings accounts. Now, Bill Clinton has ``borrowed'' every good idea Republicans wanted to use to help save Medicare in his plan. A few weeks ago, the Washington Post, no friend of conservatives, had this to say: ``The Democrats, led by the President, have shamelessly used this issue, demagogued on it because they think that's where the votes are.'' Mr. President, remember 1992, 1993. There are no cuts.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1530, the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill will make the military a better place for our service men and women--and their families. It includes a 2.4-percent pay raise, and better housing for our troops and their loved ones at places like Fort Knox, in Kentucky's 2d district. It creates a new program to make military housing dollars go even further by increasing cooperation with the private sector. And it fixes COLA dates so that military retirees have the same benefits as Federal civilian retirees. I think our retired service men and women deserve at least that, Mr. Speaker. Most important, it sends a solid message of this Congress' support for our troops--some of whom will soon be in Bosnia. I wish that weren't so, Mr. Speaker. But I am happy we can do this for them. I congratulate Chairman Spence for his leadership.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, we have been called many names, the majority has. We have been called revolutionaries, just a few minutes ago even Bolsheviks maybe, but the main term has been extreme, extreme and mean-spirited, the ``E'' word. Mr. Clinton has used it, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has used it, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has used it. It seems like there is a concerted effort to use the ``extreme'' word to describe the mew majority. Mr. Speaker, the new majority was elected by a majority of the people in this country. I do not consider them extreme; I think they saw something wrong with 40 years of one-party rule in this House. I think they saw something extreme about the spending over 40 years, and something extreme about the rising taxation that this one-party rule for 40 years had placed upon the American people. What is extreme? What is extreme and mean-spirited about wanting a reasonable balanced budget within 7 years? What is extreme about wanting to reform welfare and end welfare as we know it? What is extreme about a plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy? What is extreme about wanting to reform Medicaid and allow the Governors, just like Governor Bill Clinton wanted, to see a change in Medicaid to save it and to make it more easily administered through the States. What is extreme about wanting to give tax cuts to families when the average family today is paying 40 percent of their income, and some approaching 50 percent, in local, State and Federal taxes? What is extreme about that? Mr. Speaker, what is extreme about spending $2.5 trillion over the next 7 years, more than what we are spending now? How much more does the President want to spend? What is extreme is a President that has said over and over again he wants a balanced budget, but he never can bring himself to do it. What is extreme is 40 years of tax-and-spend that has brought this Nation almost to bankruptcy with a $5 trillion debt. What is extreme is putting our children's future in jeopardy. I have a 13-year-old daughter that, if we continue spending and spending and spending without ever balancing the budget, in the year 2012 every tax dollar will be consumed by entitlements and interest on the debt. What kind of future will she have? What kind of future will she have when she approaches my age in the year 2030? The deficit for 1 year will be over $4 trillion, just for 1 year. We are talking about the future of this Nation. What is extreme about wanting to save the economic vialibity of this Nation? It seems that our liberal friends, led by Mr. Clinton, are more concerned about next year than the years after. Extreme, mean-spirited. I have parents that are both 78 years old. I want to preserve the future of Medicare for them. I am a mainstream American. I came from mainstream America. I was elected by mainstream Americans that saw something critically wrong coming out of this Federal Government. There are a lot of 78-year-olds just like my parents back in the Second District of Kentucky that want to have Medicare in their future. But because of an extreme point of view from the other side they are willing to see it go bankrupt before they are willing to save it for the future.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the President vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I want to talk about why I believe the President vetoed what I think was a very good budget for this country. It was a bad veto for all of us. First of all, it was purely a public relations stunt, as full of irony as hypocrisy. The President had the pen Lyndon Johnson used to sign Great Society into law flown into Washington, DC from Texas. After his speech, the President quickly left the room before he had to answer questions about his balanced budget, but there were plenty of questions Mr. Clinton should have answered for the American people. The President criticized the House-Senate plan to save Medicare for the long term, but has failed to offer his own. Perhaps worse, 1994's Clinton health care plan contained major spending reductions in the growth of Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I wonder why it was OK for the President to control spending on Medicare but not for the Republicans to do the same. He also should have spoken further about the Great Society programs Lyndon Johnson used that pen for. For instance, most Americans consider LBJ's war on poverty a terrible failure. Today, one child in three is illegitimate, drug use is up, education scores are down, and generations of families have depended on welfare instead of work. We have the highest crime rate in the world, and many of our inner cities are devastated. Is the President endorsing LBJ's war on poverty that has cost $5 trillion and left this country's poor in worse shape that before? One more question, Mr. Speaker. When Bill Clinton was running for President, he promised to balance the budget in 5 years. In his first State of the Union address he promised to use economic projections of the Congressional Budget Office. Now he not only refuses to offer a real 7-year balanced budget plan, but he uses economic figures cooked up by his own economists so he does not have to make tough choices. Then he stands on the sidelines and demagogues honest efforts to balance the budget. Why does the President consistently say one thing and do another? I realize that this may sound more than a little partisan, but frankly, I am upset about a veto of the first balanced budget we have had in more than a generation, our first and perhaps last chance to stop robbing our children and grandchildren. My daughter, 13 years old, my son, 24 years old, what kind of future are they going to have unless we get realistic about balancing the budget? I call on the President to do just that. The President's LBJ pen did not work at first. After trying a new inkwell he was finally able to sign his name. If there was any justice, the ink would have been red.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 2 weeks since President Clinton promised to balance the budget in 7 years. He still doesn't have a plan, but don't worry America, there is a solution. It's called the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It's a 7-year plan to balance the budget and ensure a bright future for our children and it's waiting for the President's signature. I know, I know, Mr. and Mrs. America, you've heard all about the draconian cuts in this bill. But the Balanced Budget Act increases spending by more than $2.5 trillion during the next 7 years. Medicare spending increases 62 percent, Medicaid spending increases 43 percent, student loan spending increases 49 percent. Mr. Speaker, the President has it easy. We've already done the work. All he has to do is sign on the dotted line and he has helped save the next generation. Mr. Speaker, I hope he does the right thing--I hope the President signs the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, shortly after Bill Clinton took over as President, he presented his 1993 budget plan. He was, of course, criticized by Members of Congress on his spending and taxing priorities. He responded to his critics by demanding specifics on how they would do things differently. In fact, here is a quote from February 18, 1993. In St. Louis, MO, the President said, ``My answer is: Show me where, but be specific. No hot air. Show me where, and be specific.'' Well, today Bill Clinton criticizes Congress' balanced budget proposal. In fact, he was willing to shut down the Government to prove his point. He criticizes, but he provides no specifics. He trashes our budget, but he does not say how he would do things differently. Mr. Speaker, the President should end the hot air campaign and show us exactly where he would do things differently. Show us where, and be specific.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the last 11 months here in the House have been an object lesson on keeping promises. At least on this side of the aisle. Last year, Republicans promised the American people that if we were given a majority here in the House, we would put all our energies into balancing the budget--something that Democrats failed to do even though they had the Presidency, and control of Congress. Republicans made a commitment in the Contract With America and we kept that commitment. We passed a balanced budget. Even our opposition and liberal news media know that we are doing the right thing for America's economy and America's children. Mr. Speaker, over 3 years ago, Bill Clinton said he would present a balanced budget. He never did. The American people deserve more than self-promoting politicians who promise, but never deliver. And that is why they voted for a Republican majority. We are doing what we said we would do, and we will balance the budget.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, if the President is honestly looking for a plan that balances the budget in 7 years, uses legitimate numbers, and protects his priorities, he need look no further than the Republican Balanced Budget Act. Let us consider some of the areas the President says he has problems with our bill. Medicare--our plan increases Medicare spending every year and ensures Medicare's solvency through at least 2010. There are no cuts. Education--there are no education cuts in the Republican bill. The dollar volume of student loans increases 50 percent during the next 7 years. More student loans will be available next year than ever before. The environment--not a single environmental protection program is touched in the Republican Balanced Budget Act. There are no environmental cuts in the Republican bill. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Balance Budget Act is a good bill. It balances the budget while preserving the American people's priorities. The President should sign this bill.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true. We are unified in this effort. We realize that we have this historic opportunity and now is the time. We have a window of opportunity. I believe with all my heart if we do not do it now, that we are not going to have the opportunity. I do not know when we draw the line and say, after this there is no hope. But we are going to reach a time when the debt is going to get out of control. The interest will be out of control. We will not be able to solve the problem. I would like to ask the gentleman, do you not feel that this is it, this is our chance? This is our opportunity.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We will not ever forsake those who truly need help. We are going to help those. There is always going to be that social safety net for those who cannot help themselves. But we want to be a helping hand up and out of poverty, not keeping them in poverty with the welfare system that holds people down and keeps them dependent upon the government. We want to free people. We want to allow them to achieve all the God- given gifts that they have to be the best that they can be in this wonderful country that we have. I think to be criticized and to be called mean-spirited and other words that have been applied to us for trying to save this country by balancing the budget is truly wrong. We are doing what we feel and what the American people have asked us to do. It will save this country.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today, November 17, this House passed a balanced budget, the 1995 Balanced Budget Act. Twenty-six years it has taken to reach this day. Mr. Speaker, 26 years of spending, and spending, and taxing, and spending. Today we met the challenge, we stood up for the American people, and we have decided that we are going to bring the fiscal policies of this country into order. Mr. Speaker, 40 years, though, this House has been controlled by one party, 40 years. What do we hear when we now are trying to do what the American people sent us here to do, and that is to balance the budget? We hear the status quo being preached from the other side; that we are going to ruin this country; that we are going to hurt our senior citizens; that we are going to hurt children; that we are going to do harm to this great country. Mr. Speaker, why is it after 40 years, why is it after 30 years of the war on poverty and the design for the Great Society that was initiated in 1965, why is it that we have the highest crime rate in the world? Why is it that illiteracy is growing and SAT scores are going down? Teenage pregnancy, illegitimacy is growing at an alarming rate. Drugs are out of control. Poverty is going up. Medicare is going bankrupt. Taxes for the average family are 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, 38 percent of our gross domestic product is consumed by the public sector. We are $5 trillion in debt, and we hear from our colleagues across the aisle that we are going to ruin this country. Mr. Speaker, I submit tonight that the Great Society that was started in 1965 is a failure. The Great Society that was started in 1965, promised to win the war on poverty. As I said a minute ago, there are more in poverty today than when that started. The Great Society has taken us down the primrose lane to a society that is in trouble today. $5 trillion. $5 trillion was spent to win the war on poverty. The tragedy today is that we lost that war, and we are $5 trillion in debt. Today, I think we have started down the right road to a new future, to a truly new Great Society, a society that is going to depend on personal responsibility, on community responsibility, on State responsibility. We have started down a road where we are going to lower the taxes on middle-income families. We are going to give back to mothers and fathers and children their own money that they can spend it the way that they see fit. We are going to save Medicare for our senior citizens. We are going to turn the welfare problem around. We are going to reform it. Mr. Speaker, that is what I was sent here to do, and the reason that I wanted to come here, to try to solve these problems. I have a 13- year-old daughter. I have a 24-year-old son, and they have no future unless we do something. I think we started to do it today. Mr. Speaker, if I look down through the years, and if we do not solve these problems, my daughter, sometime midway through her work career and through her life, she will be seeing a $4 trillion deficit for one year of spending for this government in the year 2030. We cannot go down that road. I think we are doing the right thing as we started down the right road today.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, just as Mr. Hayworth said, we have to do something and we have to do it now. My mother and father are both 78 years old. My daughter is 13. I have a son that is 24 years old. We have to save Medicare for my mother and my father. We have to balance the budget for my daughter and my son. We have to provide for the future. We have to save the economic viability of this country. And that is what we are all about. It is beyond politics. We are serious. We want to save a country that is going to be a country that is going to provide the best living opportunities for our children and for our senior citizens. I think we can do no less. The time has come. We have a window of opportunity to do it now. And if we do not do it now, I am afraid it is going to be too late. So I think we have to stop the political rhetoric that is coming from the White House and from the other side. And we have to get serious and do something. I think we face a crisis as great as any crisis we have ever faced in this country and now as I said is the time to do it before it is too late. I want a future for my mother and my father where they can have a good medical care. I want a future for my daughter and my son where they will not have to spend $187,000 just on the interest on the debt, where they will not have a tax rate of 82 percent. I want a nation that is going to be strong and the greatest Nation to continue to be the greatest Nation on the face of this Earth.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues, [[Page H 12183]] maybe can they answer this; What really have the President and the liberals offered in the 104th Congress, other than name calling? What have they offered? Have they offered welfare reform? Have they offered tax breaks for the middle class? Have they offered to save Medicare? Have they offered to balance the budget? What have they offered? Yes, the President gave us a bogus balanced budget that will not reach balance by the year 2002. In fact it would be $209 billion in deficit spending. What have they done? They have had the Congress for 40 years and we are $5 trillion in debt. In 1965, the Great Society was started to win the war on poverty. We have more people in poverty today than when it started. We have more teenage pregnancy. We have more crime. We have more illiteracy. I mean, what have they done in 40 years and what have they offered this year?

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, one of the great tragedies of our Nation is the practice of abortion. Since 1973, with the Roe versus Wade decision, we have seen a culture of death, as the Pope described it, brought about by over 30 million abortions. Thirty million abortions have cheapened the value of life in our Nation. But, Madam Speaker, if abortion is not bad enough, the procedure of partial birth abortions is the most hideous example of brutality that can be imagined. It is absolutely outrageous. The procedure is used in mid- term, or the mid-term point in pregnancy, and the American Medical News reported most fetuses aborted this way are alive until the end. In fact, evidence indicates the mother's anesthesia often does not put the fetus to sleep. Therefore, the baby would have to endure the horrible pain. What are the pro-abortion arguments for this procedure? Pro-abortion forces say that procedure is used mostly on malformed babies or babies who would not live anyway. That is false. A doctor who performed more than 1,000 partial birth abortions said 80 percent are elective, that an even greater question is who should have the right to choose life and death for the other 20 percent. Pro-abortion forces say very few are performed. In the Louisville Courier-Journal earlier this year, an ACLU member said partial birth abortions are primarily limited to the third trimester. These make up less than 1 percent of all abortions. By that projection, that is more than 4,000 each year, or three or 4 abortions a day, and two doctors alone reportedly performed nearly 500 a year. Are we supposed to be reassured? Madam Speaker, I think H.R. 1833 is a good bill. This horrible, brutal practice that destroys the most innocent should be stopped and stopped immediately.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years we had a tax-and- spend Congress. In 1965, the war on poverty; for 30 years there has been a war on poverty, $5 trillion has been spent. And what have we got? We have more in poverty, we have more welfare, more illegitimacy, lower education, higher crime, more poverty, more drugs. It is time to reform. It is time to balance our budget. That Congress for 40 years spent us into a $5 trillion debt. Now, I am not going to pretend that today is going to be easy to vote on this bill, but it is time that we balance our budget. If a House run by Democrats for 40 years had not spent the American people into the ground, we would have more resources, but we do not. Today we vote on whether to stop the bleeding or whether to continue down a path that will lead our Nation, our seniors, and our children to economic disaster.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, why are Democrats willing to destroy Medicare and then point an accusing finger at Republicans when we are working hard to save it? The Democrats' arguments regarding the Republican Medicare plan simply make no sense. They say that Republicans want to destroy Medicare. They say we want to raise premiums and deductibles to pay for a tax cut for the rich. They say we want to close hospitals and deny children and babies access to decent health care. I resent those remarks, especially since my parents are 78 years old and depend on Medicare. These claims are beyond ludicrous, and by even the most casual scrutiny, no politician in their right mind would ever support such draconian measures, especially when their friends and family would be harmed. Let us set the record straight. Republicans will provide more choices for seniors. Slowing of Medicare growth cannot and will not be used to fund our tax cuts. Our plan preserves, protects and strengthens Medicare. It is supported by AMA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others. Come on, Democrats, start making sense. Think before you speak.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman just spoke, if Frank depends on the Democrats and the liberals for the next 7 years, he will return to those days of yesteryear. Madam Speaker, Republicans are not backing down from our commitment to balance the budget, cut taxes, save Medicare, and reform welfare. Unlike our liberal friends across the aisle, we will not abandon Medicare to bankruptcy. We are going to make Medicare better and provide more choices. We will also provide tax relief for working families. Taxes are just too high and families need the extra money and to determine how they will spend their own money. I, for one, will not apologize for advocating tax cuts. Besides, the President and his liberal friends, against the will [[Page H 9675]] of the American people, gave them the highest tax increase in the history of the world with the promise they would balance the budget in 5 years. But if you give a liberal a dollar, they will spend five. They did not keep their promise, so let us give the money back. Madam Speaker, this debate over Medicare really boils down to two assumptions about government: Liberal Democrats believe a big spending, high tax government is good. Republicans do not.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important that we emphasize the fact that we keep hearing from some of those in the House that we are cutting Medicare. It is just not the case. Then we keep hearing that we are going to take from Medicare and give to the wealthy tax breaks. That just is not the case. We are looking at allowing families that today are paying almost 40 percent of their income in taxes, average family, to give them an opportunity to have a $500 tax credit per child per family. That does not seem like a tax break for the rich. We are looking at a capital gains tax cut that is going to be good for everyone that wants to sell a piece of property or an investment. It just seems like that every time that we talk about anything in this House, Mr. Speaker, that we are trying to cut spending, we are trying to allow some tax credits and tax breaks for individuals and families, that it is a tax break for the rich. We have heard that from the school lunch program, from everything that we have attempted to bring the budget into balance, that the American people are asking for. It seems to me that every time we hear that, they are crying wolf on everything.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Well many of the same things that you have been hearing. My constituents are saying, ``We are not concerned that you're going too far. We just don't want you to not go far enough.'' And they want a balanced budget. They want to see a future for their children and their grandchildren, and I have told them that I believe with all my heart that the 104th Congress is totally committed to balancing the budget. One thing that they said that they would like to see come out of the Senate would be the balanced budget amendment that will insure that future Congresses will be committed just as much as the 104th to a balanced budget, that they would have to be. I think that is an extremely important thing because, if we go to the trouble of balancing the budget and doing those things that we have to do in order to do that, I would hate to see a future Congress come along and start running up a tremendous debt again. But across-the-board I saw a lot of positive responses to what Congress has done already; as you mentioned, the Contract With America, that we kept our promises now that we are moving forward with doing exactly what we said we would do in balancing the budget. I talked to my constituents about the problem with Medicare, that it would go broke in 7 years unless we do something about it, and they understood that. They want something done, they want it saved, and they want it to be secure for the future, and I think that now it is a matter of putting something together that is going to be acceptable to them and to everyone concerned. So, I had a great response across the district, and I think that from talking to my fellow and lady Congress persons that they are receiving the same response that I did. I just think that we need to carry through now with what we have promised to do from this point on and make sure that we do save Medicare, that we do balance the budget, that we do take care of the welfare problem, that we take care of regulatory reform, that we take care of making sure that we have a strong defense. You know, there are a lot of things that we are waiting, as you mentioned a minute ago, for the Senate to follow up on, but I think, when it is all said and done and the smoke is cleared, we are going to be there with all the promises kept.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. If the gentleman will yield, I would just like to reemphasize the fact that there is not a cut in Medicare, there is an increase in spending over the next 7 years. It will go from $4,800 per recipient per year on average to $6,700. That is an increase. What we are trying to do is to hold the rate of growth to what the private sector is, approximately 6.5 percent. If Medicare continues to grow at 10, 11, 12 percent, of course it will go broke in 7 years. Slowing the rate of growth, but increasing the amount that the recipients are going to receive, and giving senior citizens a choice, as you have been talking about and as Don has been discussing, and providing money.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. I am going to support H.R. 1555--but with reservations. I am concerned, for instance, over the very complicated relationship between long-distance carriers and the local companies. Over the past few weeks, after this bill was reported out of committee, this complex measure has been revised considerably. I have no doubt the extra work was necessary to some extent in order to level the playing field. H.R. 1555 is an exceedingly complex bill that will impact every American. It is always difficult to substantially change the landscape of entire industries--as H.R. 1555 does. My preference is that we take the time to continue to address what I see are problems with this legislation. If it takes a few extra weeks or months, so be it. The legislative process, however, is about compromise. And so in the end, I voted for final passage of H.R. 1555. It does promote additional competition, and opens up many barriers between telephone and cable services, and indeed, the entire telecommunications industry. It also corrects many of the problems with the Cable Act of 1993. Mr. Chairman, I voted for this measure because, though I don't agree with all of its provisions, it accomplishes a great deal. We have moved forward with this bill. On balance, I believe it will be good for the American people.