Ron Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that, yesterday, this body strongly supported H.R. 2579, the Travel and Tourism Partnership Act. This bill will establish a public--private organization to promote the tourism industry, which employs many folks in my district and over 7 million Americans nationwide. By combining public resources and private sector know how, we can find ways to promote tourism in the United States, create jobs and improve our economy. I suspect that many of my colleagues have not traveled to the Second District, so I want to extend an open invitation to visit some of our public and private attractions such as: My Old Kentucky Home State Park, located near Historic Bardstown, KY. We have beautiful vacation areas such as Taylorsville Lake, Rough River Dam Park, Green River Lake, Nolin Lake, Barren River Lake. Come see the birthplace of one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, which is now a beautiful Federal park, in Hodgenville, KY. Or you may want to visit the many cave attractions such as Kentucky Down Under and Kentucky Caverns, or the American Cave Museum and Hidden River Cave, and of course, Mammoth Cave in Edmonson County. The Second District is also home to the one and only Corvette Museum in Bowling Green, the International Bluegrass Museum in Owensboro, and the Museum of Coca-Cola Memorabilia in Elizabethtown. And you will want to experience Fort Knox, the home of the National Gold Depository and the General Patton Museum. Two years ago, I used this bill as a model to establish a Travel and Tourism Roundtable within the Second District. Since that time, the roundtable has tried to meet on a quarterly basis, bringing together representatives from tourism associations, commissions, and attractions in the Second District. Our meetings have provided an important forum to discuss initiatives that will collectively promote our beautiful and historic area of Kentucky. On October 7, our roundtable will host a day long seminar with discussions from national tourism industry representatives, State officials, and local tourism experts. Our seminar will provide an opportunity to discuss positive tourism efforts underway and to share ideas for the future. I am looking forward to this event which, in the spirit of H.R. 2579, will combine private and public tourism interests, establish better working relationships within the industry, and lead to positive solutions to advance tourism throughout the Second District. Again, I strongly support the creation of a National Travel and Tourism Board to establish on the national level, the same successful cooperation we have seen so far in the Second District.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues about National Dystonia Awareness Week, September 28 to October 5, 1996. I was privileged, Mr. Speaker, to attend a chili supper in June given by a group of residents of the Second District who deal with dystonia everyday. These residents regularly meet and discuss the challenges they meet everyday. Dystonia is a relatively rare neurological disorder characterized by severe muscle contractions and sustained postures that afflicts an estimated 300,000 people in North America. Dystonia is a complex disorder that consist of three types and is often times misunderstood and misdiagnosed. The three types of dystonia are primary, focal dystonias, and secondary dystonia. Primary dystonia or idiopathic torsion dystonia [ITD], causes spasms that affect many different parts of the body and often starts in childhood. Focal dystonias affects one specific part of the body and is distinguished for five varieties. Blespharasposm causes eyelids to clse tightly for seconds to hours. Cervical dystonia is the contraction on neck muscles turning the head to one side or pulling it forward or backward. Oromandibular dystonia--Meige's Syndrome--is a combination of blepharospasm and oromandibular dystonia in which the muscles of the lower face pull or contract irregularly to cause facial distortions. Spasmodic dysphonia affects the speech muscles of the throat, causing strained, forced, or breathy speech. Writer's cramp is characterized by muscles in the hand and forearm contracting. The last type of dystonia, secondary dystonia, is caused by an injury or other brain illness. Unfortunately, there is no known cause or cure for dystonia. Researchers, however, have made promising advancements in understanding this disorder. In 1989, Drs. Xandra Breakefield and James Gusella made the discovery of a genetic marker that will significantly advance future research. In addition, hundreds of dystonia patients and their families have made the commitment to donate their brains to further dystonia research. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to familiarize my colleagues with dystonia and encourage each of my colleagues to learn more about this neurological disorder. More information about dystonia can be found on the world wide web. The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation's home page not only offers information about dystonia, but also details meeting places and dates for those who are or have a family member affected by dystonia and can be reached at hhtp://www.iii.net/biz/dystonia/. You can also learn more by visiting an internet newsgroup dedicated to dystonia at ``alt.support.dystonia.''

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 3675, the Transportation Appropriation Act, which passed on the House floor yesterday. I commend Chairman Wolf and the conferees for their hard work and support for the growing transportation needs of our country. I'm especially pleased that the conference agreed to increase Federal highway funding from the trust funds by approximately $500 million over last year's level. For Kentucky, that means an additional $60 million will be available to fund important transportation priorities throughout the Commonwealth. One of those priorities for the Governor of Kentucky and especially for Kentucky's 2d Congressional District is the William H. Natcher Bridge in Owensboro, KY. The Natcher Bridge was previously a demonstration project, receiving nearly $54 million in Federal earmarks. At the request of President Clinton, however, Congress eliminated surface transportation earmarks 2 years ago. Since then, I've testified and repeatedly discussed this project with Chairman Wolf and other members of the Transportation Subcommittee. Chairman Wolf understands the importance of this bridge and its economic value for the community. Therefore, in the 1996 spending bill, he secured a $7-million increase in Kentucky's overall spending level, and urged then-Governor Jones to use those funds for the Natcher Bridge. This year, Chairman Wolf and the conference committee have upheld their commitment to our Nation's transportation needs by providing nearly $500 million more in overall funding for highways. And once again, Chairman Wolf has remembered our bridge, and made sure Kentucky will receive its needed share of that increase. Governor Patton has programmed $25 million in Federal funds for the Natcher Bridge, through his 1997 transportation budget. I am pleased that this measure will provide him with twice that much, so that together, we can work to complete this transportation priority. Again, I thank Chairman Wolf for his hard work.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, in 1965, our country launched a war on poverty. The intentions were good, but 31 years and $5.4 trillion later, we have nothing to show but poverty, despair, hopelessness, broken families, and a damaged work ethic. Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, this Congress set out to truly reform welfare. Twice our efforts were stopped by two Presidential vetoes. This week we're trying again. Bill Clinton wants to keep business as usual, with bureaucrats in Washington running welfare by blindly handing out checks. But, in order for us to reform the welfare system and bring it into the 21st century we have no choice but to fix it. Mr. Speaker, our plan not only changes the ``business as usual'' attitudes of the White House but will bring sweeping reforms. The Republican plan will keep welfare from becoming a way of life; restore power and flexibility to the States; keep noncitizens and felons from receiving these benefits; and encourage personal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, we need welfare reform, and we need it now.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, 220 years of history in this Nation where we have not had to define what marriage is. It has been pretty common knowledge and it has been understood by most people. But now we have reached a period in our history when we are going to have to define what marriage actually is. We have to allow the States to define and Hawaii is going to be making that decision and I think in order to allow the other States to have that opportunity, then we must proceed with this Defense of Marriage Act to make sure that they are not bound by the full faith and credit clause to accept something that would not be acceptable to the majority of the people in those particular States, or in this Nation for that matter. But again, I think it is a sad day that we have to stand here in the Capitol of the United States and define what marriage actually is.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation, with my good friend and colleague from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and other members of the House Agriculture Committee, a bill entitled ``The Precision Agriculture Research, Education, and Information Dissemination Act of 1996.'' Mr. Speaker, there is a revolution happening in farm country which many Members of Congress may not be aware of. This technological revolution taking place on farms across the Nation is already improving the environment, and changing the way our farmers and ranchers produce food and fiber. I'm speaking of precision agriculture. Today is an exciting time to be in production agriculture. This bill will compliment our recently passed farm bill and the new direction our Nations agricultural policy is taking. Farmers will be able to profit from expanding world markets and our country will reap the rewards of this increased trade. Mr. Speaker, my farmers are excited about what the 21st century holds for them. But it's vital that we help provide for research in areas like precision agriculture so that our farmers will continue to be the world's most efficient producers of food and fiber. what is precision agriculture? Emerging technologies in production agriculture are changing and improving the way farmers product food and fiber in this country. New technologies such as global positioning satellites, digital field mapping, georeference information systems, grid soil sampling, variable rate seeding and input applications, portable electronic pest scouting, on-the-go yield monitoring, and computerized field history and recordkeeping are just a few of the next generation of tools that make up precision agriculture. These technologies allow farmers to address hundreds of variables in the field--like soil PH, nutrient levels, and crop yields--on a 3- to 5-meter grid that used to cost far too much to calculate for each field. Today, these technologies can map these variables and data instantly as an applicator or combine drives across the field. In short, each farm field using precision technology becomes a research plot. And in the down-months or winter season, a farmer can use the data from the previous growing season and adjust dozens of important agronomic variables to maximize the efficient use of time, fuel, commercial inputs, water, seed rate, irrigation--the list goes on. These precision farming tools are helping farmers increase field productivity, improve input efficiency, protect the environment, maximize profitability, and create computerized field histories that may also help increase land values. Collectively, these and other emerging technologies are being used in a holistic, site-specific systems approach called precision agriculture. Progressive-minded farmers are already using these technologies. In a decade they may be as common on the farm as air-conditioned tractor cabs and cellular phones. Of course, this is not the first technological advancement to revolutionize American agriculture. Farming has evolved from horsepower to mechanized power, from chemical tools in the 1950's to these new electronic tools in the 1990's. American farmers in the next century will need these new technologies and all the other available tools at their disposal to compete in tomorrow's global marketplace. American farmers will, without hesitation, step up to the challenge to feed and serve the growing number of consumers whose very lives depend on our Nation's tremendous agricultural machine. precision agriculture research bill This legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today is critical to production agriculture, to feed the world's growing population and to protect local and global environments. This legislation will renew our commitment to further increase the amount of food and fiber which can safely be produced per acre of farmland--not as an end in itself, but as a way of minimizing the economic and environmental costs of meeting global food and fiber needs. This legislation emphasizes research and education efforts that promote the adoption of precision agriculture technologies, systems and electronic tools. These tools will enhance human health and environmental protection, and are designed to increase long term, site specific and whole farm production efficiency, productivity and profitability. This legislation was crafted in consultation with a broad array of interested parties that support the legislation and the philosophy behind it. These groups include the Fertilizer Institute, Lockheed Martin, Experiment Station and Extension Service Directors, the National Center for Resources Innovations, and the Open Geographic Information Systems Consortium. But this legislation is written with the producer in mind. One of the biggest problems with any new technology is the education process, and gathering the information to implement the technology on their farms. One of my goals with this legislation is to assure that producers of all sizes are able to take advantage of precision agriculture technologies. usda research reform The agriculture research process has continued to reward investments in science and technology. Recent research breakthroughs include conservation tillage, hybrid rice, twinning in cattle, pest-resistant soybeans, precision farming, and biotechnology. These findings are providing new ways to increase agricultural production efficiency, productivity and profitability, control pests, increase our agricultural exports, and feed the world's growing population. Members of the Committee on Agriculture have a very important question to consider in the near future: Is this country's traditional agricultural research system prepared for the challenges the next century will bring? Let's be honest--with budget constraints, overlapping authorities and competition between ARS, extension and competitive grant recipients, we must very carefully address that question. I look forward to this legislation becoming part of the reforms and reauthorization of the research title of the farm bill. I'm a strong supporter of our research and extension programs, and believe they must remain an important source of information for farmers and ranchers. Our precision agriculture research bill will help the research and extension communities take American food and fiber producers into the next century. world hunger and environments Modern agriculture has demonstrated its unique value as mankind's most powerful weapon against human hunger. Since 1950, modern agriculture has helped triple the output of the world's best croplands, sharply reduce soil erosion per ton of food, forestall severe shortages of agricultural water, and preserve millions of square miles of wildlife habitat that would otherwise have been converted to food production. So modern agriculture has played and will continue to play an important role in environmental preservation. The world has virtually no other strategy as cost effective as modern agriculture for protecting human lives from famine, and wild-lands from the expansion of low-yield, environmentally hazardous farming systems. In short, politically correct agriculture will not feed the vast majority of the world's population. Organic farming and 1950's style so-called low input agriculture, will not feed the next century's growing population. The overwhelming majority of American and world consumers are fed by conventional farmers and livestock producers. These farmers employ the latest technologies to improve production efficiencies. At the same time, they strive for maximum crop yields and livestock production in the daily struggle to produce more food for more people with fewer natural and financial resources. Increased production and new products must be the hallmarks words of American agriculture in the 21st century. We don't have to look far to understand that new technologies and advances in production agriculture will play a critical role in the next century--and that production agricultural research will have to keep pace. The increasing human population throughout the world, as well as the rising wealth and improving diets of persons in developing countries, are driving a major surge in world food requirements. The United Nations estimates the world's population could climb from 5.6 billion people last year to more than 9.8 billion people by the year 2050. The planet's population is projected to grow by about 85 million people a year for two or three decades. Ninety percent of that will occur in the Third world, doubling demand for food there by the 2025. High-yield agriculture has already proven to be an environmental success by increasing food production from the safest, most productive, most environmentally sound crop lands. The first and foremost issue of long-term agricultural stainability is preventing the plow-down of the world's remaining wildlands for low-yield production. High-yield modern conventional agriculture is the most critical factor in preserving millions of square miles of wildlands from the plow. In contrast, low- yield organic farming on a global scale could cost between 20 and 30 million square miles of wildlife--not to mention millions of lives--by the year 2040. Local environments must also be protected. New precision technologies will further reduce soil erosion and water quality impairment by applying agricultural inputs in an efficient, precise and site-specific manner that will help reduce unwanted runoff and improve surface and ground water quality. States like Kentucky have been working to address water quality and other environmental concerns within the agricultural community. This legislation will help producers reach that next level of environmental protection. State efforts like Kentucky's water quality plan, along with funding and policies of the new farm bill and precision agriculture technologies, will help provide a safe and clean environment for many generations in the future. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the proposals contained in this bill will be used by the Committee on Agriculture as we reform and reauthorize the research programs in the future.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, last May, Bill Clinton clearly stated that the Wisconsin welfare reform plan was a solid, commonsense plan for moving people from welfare dependence to work. Here is what he said on May 18 during his weekly radio address, ``I pledge that my administration will work with Wisconsin to make an effective transition to a new vision of welfare based on work * * *.'' Today, the 30-day public comment period expires and yet we hear nothing from the White House about the Wisconsin welfare waivers. Not a peep. Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a complete and total disconnect between what Bill Clinton does and what he says. As George Will once said, Bill Clinton believes everything he emphatically says, right up until the second he totally repudiates it. The same applies to welfare reform. Bill Clinton will say anything to make people believe he wants to change welfare, but when it comes time for action, he will come to the defense of the liberal status quo.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3572, which will officially designate the bridge spanning Maceo, KY, and Rockport, IN, as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge.'' Though folks on either side of the Ohio River back home know this project as the Natcher bridge, we have not yet named it at the Federal level. Two years ago, this body passed a similar bill, but the other body kept it bottled up in committee. So, today is our chance to get this taken care of. Many of you know that I represent the Second District of Kentucky, which Mr. Natcher served so honorably for 41 years. And over the past 2 years, I've heard many stories about Mr. Natcher; from Members of Congress to barbers to elevator operators. And they all seem to have one thing in common: an incredible level of respect and admiration--on both sides of the aisle. Congressman Natcher was a gentleman in every sense of the word. We all know about his incredible voting streak: When he finally was unable to make it to the Hill, he had not missed a rollcall vote in more than 40 years--or 18,401 consecutive votes. Cal Ripken could learn something from the gentleman from Bowling Green, KY. And so can we all. My office was recently sent a number of copies of a memorial tribute to Congressman Natcher. It consists of speeches made in this Chamber when he became seriously ill, and after he passed on, as well as various articles about his career. It is an inspiring work. I'm honored to be able to send copies of this book to Mr. Natcher's family, and to the schools and public libraries of the Second District. There, Mr. Natcher's legacy of hard work, fairness, and bipartisanship can continue to touch the lives of young people. Let us pass this final, simple tribute to Congressman Natcher, and ensure that the Natcher Bridge, which will be built primarily with Federal dollars, is known by its proper name here in Washington, DC, and across the country. I thank two colleagues of Mr. Natcher--Chairman Petri and Chairman Shuster--for their quick work on bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House and Senate reached an agreement on a package of commonsense health care reforms. The Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996 ensures portability, it fights waste, fraud, and abuse, it cuts redtape and creates a medical savings account program to help the self-employed and employees of smaller businesses. Mr. Speaker, this is a win-win situation for the American people. We emphasize people over bureaucracy, choice over centralization. But, unfortunately, a small group of liberals in the other body have held up this commonsense legislation for 57 days. These liberals are holding out for the centralized Clinton Care that was rejected by Congress and the American people 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, we should break this logjam. Obstructionist liberals should end their campaign to take over the Nation's health care system.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am here today in strong opposition to the Durbin antitobacco farmer amendment, which was already soundly defeated in committee and last year on this floor. Let me tell you about the family farmer in Kentucky's Second District. He grows several crops--soybeans, corn, wheat, whatever--but most often, he grows tobacco. In fact, for thousands of families back home, it's tobacco that puts food on the table and clothes on the kids' backs. Sometimes, that farmer needs advice on crop production, diseases, or fertilizer. The extension services across rural America are often the only source of this type of information. This amendment denies tobacco farmers that advice. Now I would assume supporters of this antitobacco farmer amendment would say they care about the environment. They should consider this question: What if a tobacco farmer misuses pesticides because the expert at his local extension office wasn't allowed to talk to him? This amendment also prevents hard-working tobacco farmers from buying the same crop insurance that farmers in, say, Illinois have. Think about it: Tobacco is a legal crop. And we are saying to the farmers, when they need assistance, that they are second-class citizens. The Durbin amendment does away with a critical part of the Federal safety net for farmers who grow tobacco. It is a discriminatory amendment. Each year, tobacco contributes nearly $15 billion to Federal, State, and local government in taxes. It adds another $6 billion in exports. That's $21 billion. The gentleman from Illinois should consider what liberal social programs he'd do away with without those $21 billion. Tobacco farmers also pay an additional 33 million for various assessments to allow the Tobacco Program to operate at no net-cost to the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't single out the farmers who grow tobacco. We shouldn't hurt the many families who are just barely getting by with a few acres of this legal product. And we shouldn't pretend that this amendment will stop one person from smoking, because it won't. The health risks associated with tobacco are well known, and not the issue today. The issue is the thousands of independent decisions made by farm families. The Durbin amendment would be a disaster for tens of thousands of small family farmers. Vote against this anti-tobacco farmer amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. I would just like to take a minute and talk about my colleague from California that spoke a little while ago on the floor. He held up a package of cigarettes and talked about the warning label. He asked why should the Government support the tobacco farmer with the fact that there is a warning, a health warning on the side of that cigarette package. I wish that he would have brought along a wine bottle also because on the side of the wine bottle there is a warning label concerning that person's health. Since the gentleman represents a district where there are grape growers and he represents the wine industry, I wonder why it is different that there is support for the wine industry. I noticed he voted for the Kennedy amendment. Why should there be a difference in that and the tobacco farmer? I just thought that would be a good question to ask.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 Medicare trustees' report is expected to be released today and all indications are the news will be worse than last year's report--Medicare is going bankrupt faster and sooner than expected. In late April, the Congressional Budget Office released data that showed while the 1995 trustee's report predicted a $5 billion surplus in 2002, the fund is now expected to be $86 billion in the hole. The Republican majority passed a plan to simplify and strengthen Medicare and fight waste and fraud, all while increasing Medicare spending. But with the flash of his veto-happy pen, President Clinton killed these Medicare reforms. In just a year's time, President Clinton's choice to mislead America's seniors through demagoguery and campaign scare tactics has resulted in a multibillion-dollar Mediscare shortfall. Shame on him.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that during his Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it. But when he was elected, he vetoed welfare reform twice. Mr. Speaker, Republicans take a different view. We do not view welfare as a political football. We want to give the States greater flexibility. We want tough work requirements. We want a 5-year limit on benefits. We want to lift people out of poverty and despair. There is a huge difference between Bill Clinton's view on welfare reform and the Republican view of welfare reform. Bill Clinton wants to demagog. He wants to protect Washington bureaucracy and Washington spending. Republicans want to actually keep our promises and actually do something to make a difference in the lives of those caught in the grasp of the welfare state. Mr. Speaker, we can only hope that Bill Clinton will honor his word and help us reform welfare.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the DeLauro amendment to the national defense authorization bill. One of President Clinton's first actions was an executive order that ended the Reagan-Bush ban on abortions in military hospitals overseas. As I said last year, so much for Mr. Clinton's promise to make abortion safe, legal and rare. Mr. Chairman, there are profound differences on this issue--in this country, and in this body. I believe abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Others feel differently. But who believes taxpayers should have to fund military operating facilities that deliver babies in one room and kill them in the next? Why should military doctors, who sacrifice many productive and lucrative years to serve their country, be put in this position? Proponents of this bill say doctors can decline to perform abortions--and I'm sure many will. But will that display of conscience hurt their careers? Perhaps. Our military doctors nurses, and corpsmen did not join the armed services to become abortionists. While our service men and women may have to take a life in the defense of our country--they should never have to take the life of an innocent baby. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3230--the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act. I'd like to address the first of the four main goals of the House National Security Committee: Improving the quality of life for military personnel and their families. Our all-volunteer service men and women choose to join the military. And each few years, they will choose whether or not to stay in uniform. If these folks don't have a decent place to live and work, they're not going to choose to stay. We need these people, and their experience. Too many are leaving, too soon. Mr. Chairman, I'm privileged to represent Fort Knox, in Kentucky's Second District. In order to keep men and women in uniform, our defense authorization bill includes $20.5 million for new enlisted barracks at Fort Knox along with a wide variety of quality-of-life improvements, and a 3- percent pay raise for our service men and women. Let me close by saying I also support the 13 million urban combat training center at Fort Knox included on the Senate side. Soldiers from nearly every armed service, as well as National Guardsmen and civilian police, would train there. It's likely that more and more future battles will be fought in urban areas--consider our experiences in Somalia and Haiti. When it comes time to go to conference, I hope the Members of this body will give that project consideration as well.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, back in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton said, I oppose Federal excise gas tax increases. But in 1993, President Clinton enacted the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. And buried in that tax package was a $4.8 billion increase in the gas tax. Mr. Speaker, the American people are realizing the cruel effects of the Clinton gas tax right now. As Americans plan for the busiest travel season of the year, gas prices are soaring all over our Nation. The Clinton crunch is hitting our wallets hard. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are committed to rolling back the onerous Clinton gas tax. We want to reverse the tide of the Clinton crunch and not only help people earn more but help people keep more of what they earn. The Clinton tax gas is a regressive tax that hurts all motorists, rich or poor. It is time to repeal the Clinton gas tax.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton is no Harry Truman. Mr. Speaker, you would have thought that when the people of this Nation spoke so overwhelmingly for change in 1994 by sending a new majority to Congress, the new minority would have cooperated and yielded to the wishes of the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is sad to say, but the new minority, the liberal Democrat whiners, have done nothing but stand in the way of change. Just let me give you a few examples of their obstructionism. Instead of helping balance the budget, they brought false charges against the new Speaker of the House, taking up his time when he could have been working on the legislative agenda. Instead of helping the new Republican majority reform welfare, the liberal whiners just wanted to march to the floor and accuse the new Republican freshmen of being extremists and wanting to starve children. Instead of helping middle-income families get tax breaks, the liberal obstructionists wanted to falsely charge the new majority with giving tax breaks to the rich. Instead of helping the Republican majority save Medicare, the liberal whiners and complainers just stuck their heads in the sand and tried to scare the elderly. Mr. Speaker, if there is a good example of do-nothingness in the 104th Congress, it rests squarely on the shoulders of the whining, complaining, liberal, obstructionist Democrats.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this past year-and-a-half we have heard a lot of complaining from the liberal Democrats about the new majority in Congress. It has been a continuous chorus of whining and complaining from the liberal extremists, such as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and others. They cannot stand the fact that the American people have rejected 40 years of the liberal policies that have brought this Nation to the edge of bankruptcy, the highest crime rate in the world, an education system that has failed, illegitimacy rates skyrocketing, drug abuse out of control, a welfare program that is a disaster, and a tax burden where middle income families are being crushed. Mr. Speaker, what have the liberal Democrats offered the American people to help solve these problems? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Nothing but whining and complaining because they are no longer the majority. In fact, they have tried to block everything the American people have asked the new Republican majority to pass, like a balanced budget, welfare reform, a new crime bill, legislation to save Medicare, education reform and tax relief. Mr. Speaker, the liberal whiners and complainers have fought for 2 things, regaining the majority and going back to 40 years of the big Government, tax and spend status quo.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for American taxpayers. It is a day they have waited for for many, many years. Today the House and the Senate will consider and pass the omnibus appropriations bill. This bill represents the values of ordinary American taxpayers. It represents the values of people who work hard and play by the rules. It represents the values of people who are tired of seeing one-quarter of their income going to a Federal Government that has racked up a $5 trillion national debt. This bill rejects the values of Washington. It is a departure from the tax, tax, spend, spend philosophy of the true extremists, the status quo Clinton liberals. This bill rejects the values of all the liberal special interests who have dominated this House for 40 years. Mr. Speaker, this Congress can be proud that we are making the changes demanded by the American people. This new Congress is saying no to Washington's values and yes to American values.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, later this week I will be introducing a resolution to honor the men and women in all our Reserve forces, and it will call upon the American people to honor the families of employers and all those who assist reservists in their valuable mission. I encourage all Members of this body to honor our reservists. I now yield time to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], who is a major in the Reserves, and we certainly appreciate him coming tonight.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I just wanted to say in closing tonight that I agree with you, Sonny, 100 percent, that if these men and women are going to be willing, and they are always willing, to serve their country, we need to be willing to meet their needs, to make sure that they are provided for, to make sure that we are able to recruit and to keep fine men and women in our reserves and National Guard and in our active military.

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

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to the men and women who serve in our U.S. Army Reserves. Today, April 23, is the 88th birthday of the U.S. Army Reserves. I hope the American people pause for a moment to reflect on the contributions of the more than 600,000 soldiers in our Selected and Ready Reserve Forces. For less than 6 percent of the total Army budget, reservists help fellow Americans with floods, hurricane, and other emergency relief; support peace operations in Bosnia, Somalia, southwest Asia, and Haiti. More than 3,000 Army reservists are in Bosnia. They help with counternarcotic operations in South America and elsewhere. They do a tremendous job for this country. From the early stages of our Nation, Americans have served as citizen soldiers. Indeed, it was ordinary men who left their jobs and fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War. We had no standing Army then. Eventually this citizen militia gave way to trained reservists who have served proudly in wartime and peacetime for more than 200 years. Today's Army reservists are a highly trained, highly motivated group. Many of them hold down full-time jobs with families, and then offer their services one weekend every month and an additional 2 weeks each year. Even then, they never know when they will be called upon for greater sacrifice. This is nothing to take lightly in the post-cold-war era, not when we have reservists in Bosnia and a number of other dangerous places. Mr. Speaker, let us also pay tribute to the employers of today's reservists and National Guardsmen. I am sure some of them are occasionally inconvenienced when a valuable employee changes uniform for a weekend or 2 weeks or longer. The men and women who employ our reservists and guardsmen also play a part in their valuable mission, and we should thank them for their heroic and patriotic contribution. Mr. Speaker, let me close by recognizing the contributions of a valuable Reserve unit in Kentucky's Second Congressional District, the 100th Army Division. Though its name, mission, and even headquarters has changed over the years, these soldiers have served proudly for 78 years. They just missed action in World War I, but were critical components to our armed services in the Battle of Europe during World War II. They helped capture many towns, took nearly 6,000 prisoners, and three ``Century Division'' soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor. In January 1991, more than 1,100 soldiers again went to war in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The 100th Division truly represents the finest tradition of volunteerism in our country. These men and women have all the responsibilities and challenges most of us face every day, but for 30 days and often more each year they shed their business suits for cammies and fatigues. I am proud to pay tribute to our Army reservists and National Guardsmen on their 88th anniversary, and to their families and their employers. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I would like to yield now to the gentleman that Mr. Buyer was just mentioning, a great American, a gentleman that has given his heart in service to this country and to the great group of men and women that make up the National Guard. I would like to yield now to our friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I think as the gentleman mentioned, we see these men and women not just willing to sacrifice themselves to go to war, but they are usually the very people that are willing to help out in any area, in their church, in their community. They may be volunteer firemen, and they may be whatever they need, they are usually there willing to help, help their community. They are there to look out for the best interest of what is good in our society.