Ron Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Drug Demand Reduction Act of 1998. Shortly after the Speaker established his Task Force for a Drug-Free America, we drafted an aggressive legislative agenda to win the war on drugs. To reach our goal of a drug-free America by 2002, we need to fight this battle on three fronts: Stopping the supply, increasing accountability and deterring demand. H.R. 4550 helps in ending the demand for drugs in our communities. It will fight that battle in the school yard, workplace and the prisons. Last year, I started the Heartland Anti-Drug Coalition. Our mission is to bring together the grassroots antidrug organizations in my district so we can combine our efforts and resources to educate our youth about the dangers of drugs. Just as the Heartland Coalition has been successful in creating a unified effort to keep our children drug- free, H.R. 4550 will end the demand for drugs by combining many existing efforts. Specifically H.R. 4550 establishes an aggressive antidrug media campaign and assists organizations that provide the necessary tools for parents to help keep their children drug-free. The bill also consolidates information clearinghouses to provide a single source of information on fighting drug abuse. Earlier today we passed legislation to increase our efforts to prevent the entry of illegal drugs into the U.S. Now, let us take another important step to win the war on drugs by passing H.R. 4550.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. As a member of the Speaker's antidrug task force, I count myself among the many Members of this body who have committed themselves to this Nation's war against the scourge of illegal drug use, particularly its spread among our youth. Over the past year, I am proud to say that all 22 counties in the Second District of Kentucky have established community coalitions that have accepted the challenge to take on the daunting problem of fighting illegal drugs. Let me suggest that attempts to reduce the financial resources available to the Economic Development Administration is counterproductive to the interests of these very same communities, particularly those areas that are dealing with the adverse effects of lost jobs in our textile industries and other parts of Kentucky that have not benefited from our country's successive years of prosperity. One of the most cost-effective tools we can employ today to encourage job growth and improved opportunities in our towns and communities which have been left behind. To quote one official who oversees one of my district's area development organizations, the EDA has been the backbone for our urban and rural areas for the last 30 years, creating new jobs, public facilities and disaster prevention assistance. Communities that have struggled to attract new industries or sought badly needed wastewater treatment systems have been able to rely on the EDA assistance when these projects often seem impossible. Mr. Chairman, I cannot overemphasize the positive impact that EDA has had on the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Second District that I represent. This organization has brought relief to many communities suffering from severe economic dislocation, the remnants of flood disaster and an absence of adequate public facilities and services. We have made great strides in shaping a highly respected agency that continues to provide critical funds to the most distressed regions of this country.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a high school reunion that will take place in my district this weekend. The Sheperdsville High School Class of 1932 will celebrate their 66th Anniversary Saturday. High school reunions are a time of remembrance. They give us the means to renew old friendships with classmates we haven't seen in years. We are flooded with memories of days gone by. And we are given the opportunity to share our successes and failures with those that gave us the tools to succeed in life--our teachers. It's hard to believe, but the Sheperdsville High Class of 1932 will have the opportunity to thank two of their teachers. Both teachers are 94 years old, which in and of itself is worthy of celebration. These two fine people helped prepare the Class of '32, along with hundreds of other students, for life beyond the realm of high school. And for that, I say thank you. Mr. Speaker, I offer a special congratulations and a happy anniversary to the Sheperdsville High Class of 1932. May your 66th Anniversary be as joyous as your graduation ceremonies were in 1932.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I come to this floor everyday to debate a wide range of legislation in anticipation that what we do will indeed help to improve the lives of our fellow citizens and hopefully strengthen this great democracy of ours. While we will always face tremendous social and economic challenges, there is no greater threat to our nation than the disregard we hold for our unborn children. Sadly, our President and many members of this body continue to defend the indefensible practice of partial birth abortion. Abortion at all stages is indeed a tragedy and has served to cheapen the value of life in this country and throughout the world. As long as this nation condones the legalized killing of millions of preborn babies, we will continue to struggle with its consequences, including the senseless acts of violence committed by our youth. The defenders of partial-birth abortions wish to perpetuate the evil myth that this procedure must be available to protect the health of a mother in rare occasions. Fortunately, the truth now shines on this dreadful practice. The President and his advisors can choose to rationalize their defense of partial birth abortions, but we need to look no further than to our medical professionals who have spoken out against this outrageous procedure. To quote our former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, ``partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.'' Madam Speaker, I am heartened by the House's action today to stand firm for the sanctity of life in its decision to override the President's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. It is my fervent hope that the Senate will respond in kind and support this noble effort.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to help accomplish what I believe is long overdue, to begin addressing an inequity to the taxpayers in over 1,700 counties whose homes are located near lands owned by the Federal Government. In fiscal year 1998 my home State of Kentucky is anticipating an estimated decrease of $62,000 in PILT funding to eligible county governments. While I do not doubt the benefits of continued investments in fossil fuel developments, I remind my colleagues that we are looking at an authorized program that is only funded at an estimated level of 46 percent. In my own district, it is difficult to justify to the good citizen of Edmonson County, the home of Mammoth Cave National Park, that it must accept a decrease in PILT funds while the Congress continues to fund $320 million to research activities and programs that ought to be borne mostly by the private sector. The fact is PILT funding is critically important to county governments that must rely on these annual payments to provide many basic services to their citizens, from education to solid waste management. These services, by the way, often benefit the Federal lands and facilities. In fact, Edmonson County today is providing a costly 24-hour ambulance service for the National Park Service, as well as its own residents. Unfortunately, Edmonson County was one of 56 counties in my State of Kentucky that experienced a decrease in PILT payments in 1997. With an annual budget of $629,000, a cut of $3,000 translates into either reduced public services or higher local taxes. In a county with a per capita income of less than $7,200, the importance of PILT funds cannot be overestimated. These dollars are stretched to help pay county employees' salaries, administrative expenses, and the modest salaries paid to the local magistrates. At a time when Congress is encouraging State and local governments to accept more responsibility, an increase of PILT payments becomes more essential to help provide public services and much-needed relief to local taxpayers in Edmonson County and the thousands of other counties in which Federal lands are located. However, let me assure my colleagues that the case of Edmonson County is not a unique situation. Without the increased funding proposed in the Sanders amendment, hundreds of county governments will again be shortchanged by the Federal Government. In the current fiscal year, an estimated 190 counties will have to absorb cuts in PILT funding greater than $100. Even worse, 11 States will see reductions of $1,000 or more. I want to remind my colleagues that the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act calls on the Federal Government to compensate local governments to offset losses in property taxes due to Federal ownership of lands within their boundaries. The 105th Congress now has the opportunity to finally honor that commitment and to help reduce our deficit. A vote for the Sanders amendment is a vote for taxpayer fairness.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Johnson amendment. There is no question that art serves many purposes. It communicates powerful emotions that are often difficult to express in other ways. Yet art is best judged in the context of individual creativity and independent thought, not through a Federal bureaucracy. And freedom of artistic thought is very important to our society. We do not need a Federal agency determining which art is worthy of government funding and which is not. Citizens and private groups should decide what they think is quality art and spend their money to fund it accordingly. When the NEA gives grants to art projects, taxpayers are put in the position of supporting art they may find objectionable. A recent congressional oversight study found private giving to the arts is at an all-time high. In fact, private individuals outspent the NEA 100-to-1. When it comes to supporting the arts, the private sector is where it is at. Local and State governments do likewise. Art thrives not on government handouts but on thousands of individual acts of creativity. The NEA is no longer needed to fund art. Instead, it serves as a prime example of government overreaching its sphere of influence.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this much needed legislation. The Child Custody Protection Act offers the Members of this Chamber the opportunity to safeguard the rights of their parents and their special responsibility of caring for their children they have brought into this world. It is time for the Congress to speak loud and clear in defense of the family. Allowing other adults to circumvent State law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion deprives the child of the security, love, and wisdom that only a mother and father can provide in the most difficult times. I fully recognize that the practice of abortion is a divisive issue in our country today, and I hope that one day we will again honor the sanctity of life and reject the killing of millions of preborn babies. Despite the different views toward abortion, I believe the great majority of Americans remain committed to strong families where children can face difficult decisions with the help of a mother or father. Yes, some parents are better than others, and there are laws to protect their children from abuse or irresponsible mothers or fathers. The truth is that parents will never be able to offer perfect advice or guidance for their children. However, I know of no better refuge for a child who is confronting a personal crisis than the emotional support of a parent. Encouraging a child to procure an abortion, with all its emotional consequences and health risks, without parental involvement, is an assault on this refuge and historic legal rights of parenthood. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3682. The overwhelming majority of Americans agree that we must protect the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to protect their minor daughters from those adults who have no legal responsibility for the child, but decide that a secret abortion is the preferred option. Let us respect the States' parental notification laws that promote strong families and encourage minors to make wise decisions.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3853, the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998. This legislation is critical in addressing the many problems that result in a workforce that uses drugs. But I would also like to register my support for the section of the bill that assists working parents in keeping their children drug free. I am currently working on legislation that builds on this provision in H.R. 3853. Specifically, I am looking at establishing incentives to businesses that provide resources and training to parents regarding the importance of speaking to their children about drugs. Mr. Speaker, as we know, parents are the first line of defense in the prevention and in protecting their children from this terrible plague. Unfortunately, studies show that not enough parents are talking about this important issue with their children. By giving companies tax breaks, it will encourage them to come up with creative ways to provide parents with the necessary tools to open this discussion. In the end, this will be beneficial to the employer, the employees, the family, and the community. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with members of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America on this legislation. In the meantime, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his efforts, and ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3853.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 423 and to share with my colleagues my own experience in Kentucky's Second Congressional District. Last month, the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America unveiled a plan to renew America's commitment to win the war on drugs. As many of you know, our congressional agenda will focus on stopping supply, increasing accountability, and deterring demand. It is critical to protect our borders and to assist our federal, state and local agencies in this war. But I believe the real battle will be fought, and ultimately, won at the local level. This fight will be led by parents and community leaders. And I think we in this Chamber need to play an important leadership in this effort. Recognizing this fact, I started the Heartland Coalition anti-drug project. The goal is to activate grass-roots coalition groups in all 22 counties in my district. We want every young person in the Second District to understand the dangers of drugs. These county groups are made up of parents, teachers, community leaders and members of law enforcement. Since the Heartland Coalition was introduced last year, we have: Held monthly meetings with the advisory council; Established a directory that lists every organization interested with combating drugs in each county; and Hosted a law enforcement summit which brought together community leaders involved in the anti-drug movement and law enforcement professionals. This fall we will focus on our youth. We will listen to teenagers from all over my district to learn their concerns, fears and thoughts on drugs. There is still a lot more to do, but the overwhelming support I have received from my constituents shows that we have taken a step in the right direction. So, the war on drugs will not be won from on-high in Washington but in the hearts and homes of all Americans. H. Res. 423 is a pledge from Congress we will stand ready to assist in this effort. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H. Res. 423.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, over the past year, with all the talk about a global tobacco settlement, tobacco farm families are very worried about their future. Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict at this point whether efforts to craft a settlement will be successful, but if and when the House addresses comprehensive tobacco legislation I will stand ready to ensure that our tobacco farmers are protected. I will stand, and I have listened carefully to my farmers and worked hard to formulate proposals that are fair and reflect their wishes. That may very well mean that we look for ways to provide a transition away from the current way of doing things, provided farmers are compensated in a fair and equitable way. In the meantime, though, we have a responsibility to ensure the continuation of the tobacco program that our farmers have relied on for so many years. Some have suggested that the taxpayer subsidizes the Federal tobacco program. I strongly disagree, because the budget deficit assessment paid by the tobacco growers and companies more than offsets the costs incurred by the USDA in the operation of the tobacco program, and we know what the tobacco taxes contribute to the coffers of the Federal Treasury. However, Mr. Speaker, to address these arguments I am introducing the Tobacco Program Administrative Reform Act of 1998. My proposed legislation will require current Federal expenditures for tobacco crop insurance, extension services, and the administration of the price support and quota programs to be funded by additional assessments on tobacco product manufacturers and importers. So let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker, we may very well need to think about a new direction for our tobacco farmers beyond the status quo. But there should be no confusion that the tobacco program has served our farmers ably, and for many rural counties it is the life blood of their economies. In the absence of comprehensive tobacco legislation, we must take every step to protect our farmers by maintaining the current tobacco program.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2515.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues of those Americans who are being pushed aside in our zeal to punish the tobacco companies and curb youth smoking. The rhetoric and demagoguery waged against tobacco gives new meaning to the ``politics of fear.'' If only there was the same commitment to wipe out illegal drugs, violence and illegitimacy, the hypocrisy of this campaign would not be so blatant. Yes, Mr. Speaker, here we go again. From no new taxes to lining up for pushing to the limits the most regressive tax in America. Mr. Speaker, let me say it once and say it loud and clear: A tax is a tax is a tax. The Senate Budget Committee resolution to raise tobacco excise taxes by $1.50 is far from an act of courage and wisdom. Rather, the decision is borne out of fear, expedience, and illusion. This tax is income redistribution at its worst, pure and simple. The very defenders of our poor and middle-class citizens prefer to ignore the ugly truth of the proposed excise tax increase. Instead, they have convinced themselves that they know what is best for Americans. Once again, these Members of Congress will look the other way because they know that already over 50 percent of the Federal cigarette excise tax is paid by American taxpayers who earn less than $30,000 a year. Even worse, only 7 percent is paid by folks with incomes over $75,000. Mr. Speaker, we cannot hide from the burden that this huge tax increase will have on our lower-income families. For someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, our Federal Government will be taking an additional $550 a year, and this is no small change if someone is making less than $20,000 a year. And where is all the money going? For starters, the antitobacco trial lawyers are lining up at the trough, when and if the States ever receive their portion of the new taxes and direct payments from the tobacco companies. But that is not all. We also have the Conrad and Kennedy bills, among others, that are ready to launch a new era of big government with hard-earned dollars from low-income taxpayers. Even worse, there are some Members who believe we can use this tax increase on smokers and pay for other Americans to enjoy a tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I will be among the first to support a much-needed tax relief bill. But the excise tax is an income transfer, not a tax break. Who are we really punishing? The tobacco companies? Or people who can least afford the tax increase? The fact is that this new cost will be passed on to the consumer by the companies, whether it is from a tax or a national settlement. Twenty-five percent of American adults who choose to buy a legal product, albeit one that causes serious health problems, may soon be lining the pockets of trial lawyers and funding new Federal programs that have precious little to do with stopping kids from smoking. We are told that smokers must be held accountable for the increased medical cost brought on by smoking-related illnesses. There is a myth that smokers impose higher medical costs on society and this justifies the increase in our Federal excise tax. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine tells us otherwise. The uncomfortable truth is that the lifetime medical costs of smokers are smaller than those of nonsmokers. No doubt that many of us have encountered the suffering of a friend, a relative or a loved one who has been diagnosed with lung cancer or perhaps emphysema. I believe there are more effective ways, however, that will help us convince young and older Americans alike that smoking does have dire consequences for them, and for themselves and for the people that care for them. One young man from Murray, Kentucky, said it best during his recent testimony to the House Committee on Commerce. The answer to reducing teen smoking lies with the family, and I quote, ``This can be done in the home, not in Washington.'' His answer is hard to argue with, but I would add that our Federal Government can play a valuable role in supporting this message at home by helping to educate our youth through the media and the classroom. We have made tremendous progress in this country in reducing the prevalence of smoking, and we can do even more with realistic constructive policies. Are we going to further punish adults who choose to smoke with higher taxes? Or is it time to embrace an imperfect but comprehensive settlement that, in the words of the Louisville Courier Journal Editorial Board, seeks an opportunity to make smoking more expensive and less attractive, especially to kids? Congress must find the courage to adopt sensible national tobacco legislation. Ample evidence here at home and around the world shows the folly of taxing cigarettes out of the marketplace. Look no further than to our Canadian neighbors to understand the very real possibility of black market imports of cigarettes that will elude high Federal tax. Despite the fact that Canada doubled its tax on cigarettes in 1983, the increased levy has failed to reduce youth smoking and may have even made it more difficult to control because of smuggling. In our own Nation's history, we need to look no further than the era of prohibition to see how our government can create black market windfalls for criminals. If we follow the mad rush towards another new tax, we will begin to destroy the livelihood of thousands of small family farms. Yes, we can spend millions of dollars to retrain these farmers, but I assure my colleagues that Congress cannot replace the way of life and culture they have cherished in our State for generations. Once again, Mr. Speaker, Americans and people throughout the world will continue to smoke for years to come despite all our efforts to tax tobacco to death. I urge my colleagues to seek a solution that strives for prevention and cessation, not the punishment of fifty million Americans and thousands of tobacco farmers and workers.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous to me that the talking heads on the liberal news networks with all their expertise and social behavior have not figured out the cause of the Jonesboro, Arkansas, tragedy. To listen to the evening and morning news and their take on the story, that it is because of Southerners with their obsession with guns and their hunting culture; in other words, Southerners, in their opinion, are a bunch of gun-crazy rednecks. Mr. Speaker, being a Southerner, and along with many other Southerners that have felt the sadness of this tragedy and other tragedies, I am offended by that outrageous assumption. If we want to start placing blame for this and the other tragedies, why not start with the TV networks, where our children are exposed to assault, murder, rape, drug, sex, deviant lifestyles, cheating, stealing, and uncivilized gutter language. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that violence is not confined to any one region or community in this Nation; it is pervasive in a culture that is obsessed with violence, sex, and self-gratification. The truth is, what goes in our children eventually comes out.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is time for America to weep and mourn. It is time for America to cry out for her children. ``A voice was heard,'' as Jeremiah said in the Old Testament, ``in Ra'mah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children because they were no more.'' Mr. Speaker, Jonesboro, Arkansas, is the third small community in recent months to experience a tragedy of wholesale slaughter where children are killing children. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is time for America to cry out and pray for her children. Every day almost 3,000 teenage girls get pregnant, over 1,000 teenage girls have abortions, over 4,200 teenagers contract a sexually transmitted disease, 135,000 children carry guns or other weapons to school, 10 children are killed by guns, 6 teenagers commit suicide, and 211 children are convicted of drug use, every single day. It is time for all of us who call ourselves Americans and love our children to be outraged, outraged at a morally corrupt culture that is alien to every tried and tested moral structure that traditionally has undergirded our Nation.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 1998, I was unavoidably detained and therefore missed roll call vote #62. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a piece from the Washington Times that caught my attention. It reads: ``Still amazingly relevant today, New York Gov. Theodore Roosevelt observed on May 12, 1900: We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is it not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life. It matters not how brilliant his capacity. The weakling and the coward cannot be saved by honesty alone. But without honesty, the brave and able man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by every lover of righteousness. No man who is corrupt, no man what condones corruption in others can possibly do his duty by the community. `Liar' is just as ugly a word as 'thief' because it implies the presence of just as ugly a sin in one case as in the other. If a man lies under oath or procures a lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if, instead of lying in court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability, the evil effects of his conduct are more widespread and more pernicious.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, in 1993 when I decided to run for Congress, there were many reasons why I felt I should get involved in the political campaign. One of the main reasons was my concern over the national debt and deficit spending. My wife and I did not want to see our two children faced with a mountain of debt that would eventually destroy their future. Now, just 5 years later, it is with a lot of relief and thankfulness that Congress has been able to balance the Federal budget. But today we are faced with a problem that is even greater and more destructive than runaway debt. My children and the children of this Nation are faced with a society that is experiencing a moral deficit. Eighty-four percent of the American people say their biggest concern is the decline in the traditional moral values. Mr. Speaker, if we give our children the richest economy in the world but a society that is morally bankrupt, what have we gained? Some would say, but it is the economy, stupid. But I disagree, because good economies come and go, but for a Nation to survive as history has proven over and over again, patriotism, courage, fidelity, honesty, and public and personal character must be the foundation on which it stands.