Ron Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was P.T. Barnum that once said, ``There is a sucker born every minute.'' I hope the President and those at the White House spin factory do not believe that is true. We, the American people, are fair-minded people; and we like to give others the benefit of the doubt. But we also like to be dealt with in a straightforward, truthful manner; and nothing disturbs us more than having our trust violated. All we asked for and all we have ever asked for is what Sergeant Friday from a former popular TV series used to ask of his suspects, ``Just the facts, sir. Just the facts.'' Mr. Clinton has 21 accusers saying he has done something wrong, and they are providing facts. But instead of facts coming from the White House, all we are getting is spin after spin after spin. Mr. Clinton, that may work for a while. But, unlike P.T. Barnum's theory, Abraham Lincoln had a much better one. ``You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time.'' And that is a truth that we can count on.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue we have dealt with here in Congress and in the Family Caucus, of which I am chairman, and that is, ``Rethinking the Safety Net'' for American families. The article that I want to talk about was published over a year ago, but still it has merit in answering the question of government's role in developing and strengthening families. The author, Mr. Butler, calls for several reforms which have already been implemented, reforms in areas such as adoption laws, in tax relief, and welfare. However, the theme of the article is still very applicable and relevant to today's debate about the role of government in American families. ``Rethinking the Safety Net'' states what many of us here in Congress have concluded, that government has done more damage than good for the American family. Mr. Butler points to many areas to prove this point, including the high burden of taxes, the dependency of entire generations on welfare, and how the decline of religion in this country is partly due to government actions. This article about rethinking the safety net tells us the current safety net of government programs is not working. The true safety net consists of social institutions like family and religion. Therefore, Congress should promote programs that strengthen the family, rather than weakening it. When Congress debates how to best implement and create social programs, let us keep in mind that communities and families are the most important areas to look at. Mr. Butler shows us how programs created by Congress have had an adverse impact in the past. Let's not make the same mistakes again. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article by Mr. Butler.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which will move the agriculture research reauthorization bill one step closer to enactment. This resolution strikes the Senate language and moves the House bill to conference. I would like to thank Chairman Smith, Chairman Combest, ranking member Dooley, and the committee staff for their hard work on this important bill. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes the essential part of legislation I authored: The Precision Agriculture Research, Education, and Information Dissemination Act. Several new technologies make up precision agriculture. These include global positioning satellites, digital field mapping, grid soil sampling, and the list continues to grow as technologies develop. If our farmers are to remain the most productive and most efficient growers and producers in the world, precision technology must be made available to them. This technology is just as revolutionary as moving from the horse to the tractor, or from plow to conservation tillage. Let's not deny our farmers the opportunity to remain the best in the world. Today's vote is just another step in bringing our farmers into the 21st century.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2534, the agricultural research reauthorization bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]; the gentleman from Texas, [Chairman Combest]; and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], and the committee staff for their hard work on this important bill. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes the essential part of legislation that I authored, the Precision Agricultural Research Education and Information Dissemination Act. Several new technologies make up precision agriculture. These include global positioning satellites, digital field mapping, grid soil sampling, and the list continues to grow as technology develops. If our farmers are to remain the most productive and most efficient growers and producers in the world, precision technology must be made available to them. This technology is just as revolutionary as moving from the horse to the tractor or from the plow to conservation tillage. Let us not deny our farmers the opportunity to remain the best in the world, and I urge my colleagues to bring our farmers into the 21st century by voting yes on this bill.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the President's use of the line-item veto on the military construction appropriations bill. Now, I support the concept of the line-item veto. It's a tool Presidents should have as long as deficit spending continues. But my support doesn't mean that I must agree with its use in every instance. On these specific vetoes, the administration has admitted that projects were mistakenly vetoed. One such mistake was in my district. The President vetoed a qualified training range at Fort Knox. This range is an insightful, cost-effective efficient answer for arms training. It saves valuable training dollars and hours by creating one range that will meet training standards for 11 different weapons. This project saves money, time, and reduces risk to soldiers. In fact, it fulfills Secretary West's stated goal of ``pursuing innovative ideas to increase efficiency.'' However, the President did not consider this goal when using his line-item veto authority. Instead, he considered factors that don't hold up under close scrutiny. According to the President, he vetoed those projects that were not included in his original budget request, those for which design work had not been completed, and those that, in his view, would provide no substantial contribution to improving the lives of soldiers. His first reason is far-fetched because this range was included in his 5 year military construction plan. Getting beyond this fact, his original argument still doesn't stand up. Congress added many more projects than the 38 vetoed. Why didn't the President veto all of them? After all, none of them were included in his budget request. His second reason is simply wrong. Construction is scheduled to begin next summer if the funding is approved. Furthermore, design work on this project is well underway. Finally, to suggest this would have made no substantial contribution to the lives of soldiers is misinformed. The Army agrees that this project is needed to correct shortfalls in mandatory training. To even suggest this would not have contributed to the lives of soldiers reveals the sharp philosophical differences between the President and myself on this issue--the importance of investing in those Americans upon which our national defense rests. Let's not put the lives of our soldiers at risk because of mistakes. The process allows us to override this veto. I urge my colleagues to do just that. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. All time has expired. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2631.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, due to the serious illness of my sister and her passing on October 10, I was unable to be in Washington, DC from October 7, through October 9. I would appreciate having the record reflect that I would have cast the following votes, had I been present: H.R. 1122: Partial Birth Abortion--Yes on Votes 499 and 500 Over the years I have been a strong supporter of the unborn and consistently cast my vote in favor of pro-life issues. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about. I voted in favor of H.R. 1122 earlier this year, and during the 104th Congress. Had I been present, I would have again voted yes on H.R. 1122 to end the horrific practice of partial birth abortion. H.R. 901: American Land Sovereignty Protection Act--No on votes 498, 501, 502, 503 and yes on 504 As a cosponsor of H.R. 901, I strongly support this measure which would ensure congressional approval is given before any U.S. land is designated as a World Heritage Site, a Biosphere Reserve, or is given any other U.N. designation. Had I been present, I would have opposed any weakening amendments and voted for final passage of this important legislation. H.R. 2158: VA, HUD Appropriations Act conference report--yes on 505 I supported this measure when it was passed by the House, earlier this year. This final version continues to increase support for veterans programs while controlling spending in other areas as agreed to in the Balance Budget Act. Motion to instruct on H.R. 2169--Yes on 506 I would have supported this motion to instruct the conferees on the State Department Reauthorization Act to prohibit the use of any Federal funding by private organizations that promote abortion. Once again, I would have voted yes to protect the unborn and prevent any efforts to promote abortions worldwide. H.R. 2169: Transportation Appropriations Act--Yes on 507 and 510 While I support efforts for long-term improvements to the surface transportation funding system, I was pleased that this bill increases spending for infrastructure necessities next year, and would have voted yes. Approval of the Journal--Yes on 509 H.R. 2607: District of Columbia Appropriations Act--No on 511, 512 and YES on 508, 513, and 514 I would have supported this measure because it includes important, necessary changes to the education system in the District of Columbia, such as the implementation of voucher programs for students. I would have voted against efforts to prevent the voucher program from moving forward. Had I been present, I would have also opposed the Vento amendment that in my view, would delay repair work at dilapidated District schools.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Istook-Manzullo amendment. My question is, what did parents do, mothers and fathers do, before title X? What did they do before Congress got involved in trying to manage the raising of their children? I just looked at the chart a little while ago, and it looks like since 1970, teenage pregnancy rates have doubled. Sexually transmitted diseases have exploded on the scene. So can we stand here today in the halls of Congress and pat ourselves on the back for title X, and for what a great job has been done in stopping teenage pregnancy, in stopping sexually transmitted diseases? Can we do that? For 200-plus years mothers and fathers in this country were able to take care of their children. It is amazing that this great body can be so presumptuous to think that they can do a better job. I think the statistics prove that they have not been able to do a better job. It seems like that would be the face of it. What is wrong with allowing parents to be put back in the decision- making process when it comes to their children? It is not your children, it is the children of the parents of this Nation. Like I said, they were certainly able to do a pretty good job until we got involved in it. Mr. Chairman, under current title X regulations, clinics across the country are free to provide contraceptive devices without notifying the parents, and this violates the most fundamental right of being a parent, the right to be involved in their children's life when making crucial decisions. Yes, there are bad parents out there, but, lo and behold, the majority of parents in this Nation are good parents. But my colleagues are painting with a broad brush and saying that all parents are bad. All of them; that parents in this Nation cannot make good decisions for their children. Mr. Chairman, I say for 200-plus years they were able to do a darn good job. But, no, big government, this Government had to get involved. What is wrong with taking a look now at where we are? Just like the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], my colleague the doctor, a little while ago said, let us stop, let us take a look at it. Mr. Chairman, I have just sponsored a bill, the Family Impact Act, that proposes when Federal agencies put forth new regulations, we stop and see how those regulations are going to affect the family. Do my colleagues not think we need to stop now just for a little while and see how title X has affected the family? How not notifying parents about particular problems, like those mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], mentioned a little while ago, has affected the family? Stop and say: What is wrong with this picture? What should we do now? Mr. Chairman, I would like to think that if we are going to be helpful in this Nation to our children and our parents, that we would at least take a look when things are not going right and say what can we do to correct it? Well, this amendment corrects the problem. It makes sure that parents are involved. It does not mandate that children must get their parents' permission to use contraceptives, but it does make sure that they are notified. What is wrong with that? It simply requires that they provide information to the parents if their child asks for contraceptive drugs or devices. It also protects the child by requiring title X providers to report evidence of child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest to the proper State authorities. Mr. Chairman, it is time that this Government makes sure that parents are once again involved in the raising of their children. Is that not the least parents should have? Like I said, I think they did a good job until this institution got involved. We need to look and see where we are and where we need to go, and I think this is a good step in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Istook-Manzullo amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, why give OSHA an $11 million raise and take from vo-tech training and adult training? Why do that when I think the statistics that have been given to us from across the aisle indicate that OSHA has not been doing a very good job; if we look at the National Safety Council statistics indicating that OSHA, since its founding in 1970, has been irrelevant to the long-term decline in workplace fatalities? Moreover, a 1991 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that OSHA regulations significantly reduced productivity and growth in the United States, which undoubtedly means a parallel loss in employment opportunities. Is this good for the workers who take $11 million out of vocational training and adult training to cut them? I want to talk about a small town in my district, Campbellsville, KY, population 10,000. They just lost 1,400 workers from a textile company, 1,400 workers. Is that good for the workers, and then to take $11 million out of vocational training and adult training that could help these displaced workers find new jobs?

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

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. It is $11 million less than the 1997 funding.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Well, Mr. Chairman, that was not what I saw. Even with that, should we not be trying to help displaced workers with better vocational training, better adult training? That is the key. Look at OSHA, a bureaucracy that is out of, basically out of control, if we look at some of the horror stories. Rod Stewart owns and operates a small business that manufactures corn brooms and cotton mops in Union City, IN; Reit-Price Manufacturing Co., which he owns, started by his father in 1900, employs four people. When Indiana OSHA inspected his operation 3 years ago, even though it was a first-time inspection, the inspector fined Mr. Stewart $500 for not having paperwork on hand listing hazardous items in the shop. Well, Mr. Stewart did not need to fill out any paperwork because there was not any hazardous material that he deals with in his business. When Mr. Stewart realized that OSHA considered many items to be hazardous, even though they can be purchased anywhere, in a grocery store or a hardware store, he was able to talk the inspector out of fining him for not having paperwork on his Lava hand soap, but he was still fined $500 for other items, such as a standard oil can WD-40, which can be purchased at any gas station. Mr. Stewart has not always had just four employees. He used to have more than 20, but due to foreign competition, particularly from Mexico, seven corn broom manufacturers have gone out of business this year. That is 400 to 500 people who have lost their jobs. Mexican importers, they do not have to absorb the cost of regulatory agencies like OSHA. One thousand four hundred jobs in my district; $11 million should be going for better training, better education, job opportunities that will allow them to take care of their families. I do not think an $11 million pay raise for OSHA is going to do anything that is going to help worker safety. The statistics do not bear it out. And my colleagues across the aisle, the numbers that they gave on workplace injuries and fatalities since 1970, these are recent reports; is OSHA doing their job with those kinds of negative numbers? I do not think so. Let us do something to help the workers in this country better than what OSHA is doing.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for my colleague's amendment. I do not believe America should offer financial assistance to any foreign organization that supports abortion. Under today's policies, several agencies that are supported by U.S. funds can do just that. Groups like the U.N. Population Fund and Family Planning International Assistance freely take U.S. monetary support and use those funds to perform and promote brutal abortion policies. Some of them, like the U.N. Population Fund, help fund China's coercive population control policies which result in thousands of abortions and forced sterilizations. These organizations are also attempting to change abortion laws in many different countries. They are actively lobbying for abortion with the assistance of U.S. tax dollars. This amendment will prevent these atrocities. It guarantees that no U.S. funds will be used in any way to promote abortion or sterilization by any group. If these agencies want to promote abortion as a form of birth control, let them do it without the support of American funds. I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment and prevent U.S. funds from being used to support coercive family planning.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Youth Theater of Hardin County, KY, on its 26th anniversary. The Youth Theater of Hardin County is now the oldest educating and performing community youth theater program in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. More than 1,275 students have participated in this program and over 3,000 students and adult volunteers have assisted in this endeavor. It has been an integral part in promoting and advancing theater among Kentucky's youth for over a quarter of a century. For that, it deserves special recognition. The Youth Theater is composed of 7th through 12th grade students from Hardin County Schools, Elizabethtown's Independent Schools, and Fort Knox Community Schools. It is designed to educate students in the performing arts and to promote cultural growth and awareness with quality performances. In the process of putting together a production, students learn skills that are essential to a successful life. Skills such as team work, self-esteem, and the power of the human voice to stimulate and entertain audiences. In this regard, the Hardin County Youth Theater has been very successful. The Youth Theater's impact on the arts community is being felt locally, nationally, and internationally. Several individuals and groups have won talent recognition at the local and State levels, as well as the Youth Talent International Competition. And the achievements don't stop after students leave. Alumni from this distinguished Youth Theater are performing throughout the country and contributing to every aspect of the arts community. They are performing as equity and nonequity actors, singers, dancers, choreographers, technical directors, and technicians. Young, aspiring actors have left the Hardin County Youth Theater to perform on collegiate stages, regional stages, national stages, and even international stages. Several alumni have performed in off-broadway productions, and one has made an impact in Hollywood. When students leave the Hardin County Youth Theater, they continue to give back to their communities in a variety of ways. Former students are working with regional and national entertainment parks as costume characters, live characters, singers, dancers, and technicians. One such student is now serving as an instructor to other aspiring performers with a multinational entertainment conglomerate. Another is the director of the Kentucky Governor's School for the Arts. The Youth Theater is, indeed, an integral part of our Nation's arts community. Meanwhile, those students who do not choose to follow theatrical careers credit the Youth Theater with preparing them for the future. They credit their poise, responsibility, self-esteem, and their ability to work individually and with diverse groups directly to their participation in Youth Theater and its activities. These alumni have chosen a variety of different career fields. They are professionals, businessowners, white and blue collar workers, and even farmers. Regardless of profession, they contribute vastly to society. The Hardin County Youth Theater has been successful in many regards. It has contributed to the arts community at all levels. It has given students the skills needed to lead a successful life. And it has encouraged its students to give back to their communities and leave them better than they found them. I congratulate the Hardin County Youth Theater on its 26th anniversary. Hardin County is better because of it, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky is proud to claim it. I look forward to its continued success, and I'm sure it will strive to reach even higher heights in the future.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Lowey amendment because of its devastating impact on the family tobacco farmers in my district across Kentucky. Those offering this amendment today think that they are attacking cigarettes, youth smoking and big tobacco. Those attacks, however, are hitting the tobacco farmers and hitting them hard, that small family tobacco farmer. Most of these farms in Kentucky in my district are small, often part-time. They are hard working farmers who are trying to make ends meet and providing a better life for their children. Denying crop insurance to Kentucky tobacco farmers will have no effect on youth smoking, will have no effect on tobacco use, will have no effect on the big tobacco companies, will have no effect on the local retailers, and will have no effect on the supply of tobacco. If we do not grow tobacco in the rural areas of Kentucky, then big tobacco will import it. In fact, big tobacco companies could then import cheap foreign tobacco and benefit, yes benefit from our vote in favor of the Lowey amendment. The only folks hurt by the Lowey amendment will be the small family tobacco farmer, who deserves the right to participate in the same USDA crop insurance or noninsurance disaster assistance program offered to every other farmer in this country.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats, the ones that gave us the largest tax increase in the history of this Nation in 1993, go through more excuses why they are opposed to tax cuts than Victor Newman on ``The Young and the Restless'' goes through wives. Another striking parallel is that these liberal Democrats change excuses with as little shame as Victor has when he changes wives. One excuse is as good as another, it seems. It kind of makes you wonder if these liberal Democrats can be trusted to honor their agreement to tax cuts. After all, sooner or later they will come up with a new excuse why the middle class should be denied a long overdue tax cut. The excuse does not even have to be a good one, as long as they can act like they are morally outraged. Sure, we can make up new definitions of who the rich are so that millions of middle-class families can kiss their tax cuts goodbye. Or we can falsely claim that letting people keep more of their own money is some kind of lucky tax giveaway. Or we can complain that people with no taxes to cut are not going to get a tax cut. Excuses, excuses.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment of Representative Harman. It allows abortions at overseas military bases. I commend my colleague on her bipartisan efforts to promote a strong national defense and her hard work on the Committee on National Security. However, this is an issue where I must respectfully disagree. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Government should not spend one penny to fund abortions. It is an emotionally charged debate that divides this great Nation. Due to that fact alone, it is not just for our Government to spend taxpayers' dollars on an issue that pits so many Americans against each other. Regardless of reimbursement, no Federal facility should be used to end the life of the unborn. Mr. Chairman, what is the purpose of our medical personnel in the military? Is it to take lives, or is it to protect lives? I believe the military's medical community is in the business of protecting the lives of innocent people. It nurtures those who are injured. It shelters the sick and the weak. And it seeks to make sure lives are saved, and that includes the life of the unborn. We should not stand by and allow abortions on military bases because it contradicts why we have personnel in our military.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, as I speak, the Committee on Ways and Means continues to debate the details of what would be the first major tax cut enacted in 16 years. This proposal is consistent with the balanced budget agreement. The proposal contains permanent tax relief covering people throughout their lives from the childhood years to the education years, from the saving years to the retirement years. It offers a $500 per child tax credit covering 41 million children. Education incentives are offered by creating investment accounts to allow parents to save tax-free for their children's higher education. A 10-percent capital gains tax cut rate would cover 5 million Americans, including 2 million senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, this package represents a clear and more simple vision: Allow the American people to do more by letting them keep more of their earnings.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 956, the Drug- Free Communities Act. This better equips community antidrug organizations that have proven effective in the war on drugs. All one needs to do is look at the facts to see that we have not done enough to combat drug abuse in our country. Fact. Marijuana use among high schoolers has more than doubled since 1992. Fact. LSD use is now at its highest level since the early 1970's. Fact. We are losing the war on drugs. I believe that the best place to wage the war on drugs is in the home. When parents get involved, drug use is dramatically reduced. Local institutions must also get involved. Churches, schools, civic organizations, and local dignitaries must also step forward and help fight the war on drugs. This bill sends to local organizations the resources to provide needed guidance and support to stamp out this scourge on society. Recently I initiated the Heartland Coalition project. The goal of this project in my district in Kentucky is to bring together current antidrug groups and coordinate efforts to curtail the drastic increase in illegal drug use. These existing antidrug groups can efficiently and effectively use the Federal dollars allocated by this bill to do just that. Mr. Speaker, these grants can be used for a variety of purposes. They can help cover media campaigns to educate our kids about the dangers of drug abuse, or they can be used to sponsor seminars at schools. If these efforts keep just one kid off drugs, this bill will be a success. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 956, the Drug-Free Communities Act. Again the best place to battle drugs is on the local level. That is what this bill does. It gives local communities the ability to fight the war on drugs. I would also like to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I realize that the administration is far too busy with all of their lawyers trying to figure out a way to handle all the campaign laws they overlooked to show some leadership on the Medicare issue. I know that would be asking too much. So while the administration is busy with all of their lawyers, this Congress must lead the way on Medicare. The Medicare trustees released their annual report to the American people last week. The trust fund is going bankrupt, probably in only 4 years. The report confirms what Republicans have been saying about Medicare for the last 2 years. The trustees state that failure to fund Medicare will result in certain bankruptcy in the year 2001. None of this is new. Every single Member of Congress has known this for several years. I call on those who are more interested in saving Medicare from bankruptcy than in playing politics with seniors to join in our effort to reform Medicare. We must act now.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Congress to focus on our agenda. That agenda is aimed quite simply at creating a better America for ourselves and our children, creating a better tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what generations of Americans have done for the past 200 years. Today, however, we must recognize two obstacles to the American success story. The first is the juvenile justice system that is broken. The second is a legal system that actually threatens volunteerism with absurd lawsuits. Let us think about, Mr. Speaker, kids being safe, where every mother expects her government to provide a minimum of security for her children. As for the second, volunteerism, helping our kids in Little League, helping the poor and the elderly, volunteering our time at our churches, volunteerism is as American as apple pie. But lawsuits and manipulation of the legal system threaten these activities everywhere. Let us start by passing reform of the juvenile justice system and volunteer protection legislation now.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say to my colleagues across the aisle that in defense of their party, they remind me of the fox coming out of the chickenhouse with chickens all under his arms and getting caught, and saying: We have to do something about that lock. But in the meantime, we have to investigate the farmer, because he has been getting chickens out of that henhouse, also. Mr. Speaker, that is the way it is. Get real. There are problems that stink to high heaven in the DNC and in the White House, and we need to get to the bottom of it. When there are problems like that on this side, let us know and we will try to do something about it, also.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, we are set to vote on a rule for a very important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--pro-life and pro- choice--to vote ``yes'' on the rule. This rule is more important than most, Mr. Speaker. I'll explain why in a moment. We have a chance today, in light of new evidence on the subject, to save unborn, late-term babies from a horrible death most people wouldn't wish on an animal. Let's remember what happens during this procedure: The baby, often as old as 8 or 9 months, is partially delivered. Then killed by the abortionist with surgical scissors. For years, the proponents of abortion on demand have said that only 500 partial birth abortions were performed each year. Only 2 weeks ago, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted he's ``lied through his teeth'' when he said the procedure was rarely used. He has admitted that pro-life groups are accurate when saying the procedure is more common, and almost always performed on a healthy mother. When President Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban we passed last year, one reason he cited was that we didn't include an exception to protect the health of the mother. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, U.S. abortion law defines health to include emotional, psychological, familial, and even the mother's age as factors. Indeed, as even the defenders of this practice must admit, these are often the reasons this brutal procedure is used. That's why I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton has stated over and over his commitment to producing a real balanced budget. I do not doubt his commitment. It is his math that I am worried about. The CBO predicts the President's most recent budget will have a $69 billion deficit in the year 2002, when there should be no deficit. Mr. Speaker, we see that the White House worked feverishly to defeat a balanced budget amendment. Now we see why. He has no intention of producing a real balanced budget. During his State of the Union Address the President said, and I quote, ``Balancing the budget requires only your vote and my signature. It does not require us to rewrite our Constitution.'' Mr. Speaker, who is the President kidding? If he cannot even produce a balanced budget, why should we expect him to sign one? Instead of lip service, Bill Clinton should send Congress a real budget using real numbers and one that actually adds up.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to President Clinton's request for the early release of family planning funds, and I urge my colleagues to instead support H.R. 581. Let me begin by noting that H.R. 581, the proposal by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], would still allow early release of these funds, but in a much better way. For more than a decade, we had a system regarding family planning funds that worked. H.R. 581 would restore that system. Under H.R. 581, the organizations receiving these grants must again agree to not perform abortions or undermine the laws of their host countries. I will remind my colleagues that these grants are tax dollars taken from the pockets of hard-working American families. Known as the Mexico City policy, these short set of conditions worked for a decade and was agreed to by all but 2 of the more than 300 agencies which received family planning grants. There were two exceptions: Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Mr. Chairman, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation's official policy statement includes these goals: Advocate for changes in restrictive national laws, policies, practices and traditions, and campaign for policy and legislative changes to remove restrictions against safe abortions. The IPPF even advises its affiliates to operate right up to the edge of what is legal and sometimes even beyond. So today's vote is also a test of whether we respect the sovereignty and customs of these nations. Using American tax dollars to fund organizations overseas that in some manner promote abortions not only horrifies those of us who are pro-life, it should also concern every American taxpayer and those of us in this body who believe we should respect our friends in other nations. Sending tax dollars taken from our hard-working citizens to groups that promote abortions in foreign nations is wrong in all of these ways. President Clinton dropped the Mexico City policy 4 years ago. I believe it was a mistake, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the President's resolution and support H.R. 581.