Ron Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the two-thirds tax limitation amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, a typical family of four pays nearly 40 percent of its income in Federal, State and local taxes. When you consider sales and a variety of other taxes that a family is often paying nearly half of their hard-earned money in taxes. Is there any wonder why so many folks are struggling to make ends meet? We have learned over the past four decades that too many politicians would rather raise taxes than reduce spending or even the growth of spending. Incidentally, that is not just true in Washington. An article published in Kentucky papers across the State this weekend showed my home State of Kentucky, that the taxes there are a burden on the lower income people more heavily than any State in the Nation. That is according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. We can make a statement on this tax day in the House of Representatives. We can tell the folks back home that they matter more than big Government, that Congress can make the occasional tough spending decisions without asking hard working men and women to contribute more. Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago, President Clinton ripped out a page from the Republican playbook by saying the era of big Government is over. We can help him keep his word today by passing House Joint Resolution 159. It is a good start toward ensuring the era of big Government will truly be over. Over the past three decades, there have been 16 major votes to increase taxes. Just half of those would have become law if there has been a two-thirds requirement. We may not be able to stop President Clinton from vetoing our tax cuts for working families, but we can help make sure that a one-vote margin in the House or the Senate does not allow another massive tax increase like the 1993 Clinton tax hike. Mr. Speaker, let us tell the American people that enough taxes are enough.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, Reader's Digest recently did a poll that showed that Americans believed that the maximum tax burden a family of four should face is 25 percent. That is what Americans think is a fair tax burden. But reality shows that, today, the total tax burden--State, local, Federal--is near 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, and if I may strike a moralistic tone, this is wrong. It is wrong that Americans have to suffer under a nearly 40-percent tax rate. It is a recipe for disaster for us here in Washington to pass bill after bill, year after year, just to make sure the Washington bureaucracy has enough money, and while the country goes further and further in debt. How much is enough? Forty percent? Fifty percent? How long before our children start paying an 80-percent tax rate? Mr. Speaker, Washington taxes too much because Washington spends too much. Bill Clinton's latest budget totally fails to address the reality that we need to cut Washington taxes and cut Washington spending.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, as we have heard this morning the rhetoric from the other side about education, let us talk about education in this country for just 1 second. Since the mid-1960's, the Great Society, billions of dollars thrown at education, and where are our kids today? Where are students today? Has money helped the education in this country coming from the Federal Government? I say no. The SAT scores have gone down. Drugs have gone up. Illegitimacy has gone up. Where is education in this country today? Billions of dollars thrown at it from the Federal Government. I think it is time we give it back to the parents and the communities and let them give their children a good education.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pombo-Chambliss amendment. One of the promises I made to the farmers in Kentucky's second district was to help relieve the regulatory burden the Federal Government has placed on them. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will cut paperwork, save farmers money and better control illegal immigration. Our farmers must be able to obtain the needed and legal work force to competitively compete in the growing world market, so they can continue to provide the safe and abundant supply of food and other agricultural products Americans have come to expect. I challenge anyone here to tell a Kentucky farmer there are enough domestic workers. Again and again farmers tell me that one of the biggest problems they face is a willing and qualified work force. These jobs are mostly seasonal, temporary, and there simply are not enough domestic workers to do the hard work for short periods that are still a big part of agriculture production needs. It is important to note this amendment requires employers to give preference to U.S. workers who apply for these jobs, ensuring that domestic workers are not displaced. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pombo-Chambliss amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today the Clinton administration introduced its budget for 1997. I'm sure that liberals all across Washington are pleased to see more taxes, more money for the Federal bureaucracy, and more of the status quo. The rest of America, I suspect, will not be as enthusiastic. Bill Clinton has no plan to save Medicare, he has no plan to reform welfare, and he offers the same old big government remedies that have failed for the last generation. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, Bill Clinton asked Congress to give him $8 billion in additional spending for his liberal constituencies. Now, he is asking for billions and billions more. today, the national debt stands at 5 trillion, 35 billion, and 165 million dollars. It's time for Bill Clinton to stop playing political games with our children's future. Clinton's new budget offers crystal clear proof that there is no reason to believe that he wants to balance the budget.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and did not cast my vote on rollcall No. 58. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on House Concurrent Resolution 149.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the committee achieves the reforms needed in dairy policy, just as H.R. 2854 does for all other commodities it affects. Again, dairy farmers are meeting their responsibility in helping to balance the Federal budget, but they need the committee reforms to the dairy program to meet that responsibility and to make a profit milking cows. The committee bill saves $76 million in over 7 years. That is $400 million more than the Solomon-Dooley amendment. The dairy industry wants to become more market-oriented, and the committee bill allows them to accomplish that during a 2-year transition period, the shortest transition period included in the farm bill. The committee bill consolidates orders, reforms pricing, phases down support price over 5 years, and provides a safety net for the thousands of dairy farm families across this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I met with two groups of dairy farmers from my district last week concerning the committee bill. These hardworking family farmers, who only want an opportunity to make a living for their family and be successful in dairy farming, they believe the committee bill is the way to go. I ask that my colleagues defeat this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the farm bill, and am proud to say I was one of the nine original sponsors of the first freedom-to-farm bill. Last year, Mr. Clinton killed freedom to farm when he vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. But make no mistake about it. Today's bill still lives up to that nickname. It still lets the folks who actually grow crops decide what to plant--and how much. They know their own soil better than all the Washington Bureaucrats combined. It cuts Government intrusive paperwork and provides the needed safety net for farmers. In less than 2 years of representing Kentucky's Second District, I've spoken with hundreds of farmers. From the Second District alone, more than 45 members of the Kentucky Farm Bureau are here today, waiting for us to pass this bill. If there's one thing nearly all of them agree on, it's that they'd rather spend time planting and harvesting crops than filling out Government paperwork. Or drawing lines on maps. I think they may be even more excited about our crop insurance reform. After the President signs this bill, farmers won't be forced to buy crop insurance just to participate in Government programs. I think many of them will continue to but it, but these businessmen and women didn't appreciate being told to do so. They're pretty independent folks, and they're looking forward to getting some of the burden of big government off their backs. They're also pretty conservative folks. They care about the future of their children, and grandchildren. And they've told me they're happy to help balance the budget if they can spend more time in the fields and less at the ASCS office. They're still looking for further regulatory reform, and tax cuts that will help them stay in business, or pass on the family farm. We need to continue to pursue these farmer- and family-friendly measures. Mr. Chairman, today we begin to overhaul our Nation's 60-year-old agricultural policy. I congratulate Chairman Roberts' courage and vision on this matter. This is truly the most sweeping change in farm policy since the New Deal. It's good for farmers, it helps us move toward a balanced budget and it doesn't pull the rug out from under the people who feed our Nation. Mr. Chairman, let's continue to lead, let's pass the farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, what is the truth about the Government shutdown? The truth is this. The radical liberal left of the House of Representatives have been obstructionists for many, many years and they are continuing it this year, and in this coming year. Mr. Clinton, in his second so-called budget, wanted to slow the rate of growth in Medicare, bring about tax relief. That was greeted with, my goodness, this is terrible, this is awful, from our friends across the aisle. I wonder when the President talked about extreme Republican freshmen if he should not have looked at himself when he was talking about the tail wagging the dog. Is he afraid he might lose his base if he presents a balanced budget and puts the Government back to work?

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. With all due respect, why now are we hearing from the other side that we need to focus on the balanced budget, get a continuing resolution, move away from the government shutdown, when we did not hear anything from the other side about a balanced budget until just recently this last year? What we heard from the very beginning of the 104th Congress was a lot of rhetoric, a lot of words like ``extremists,'' ``mean-spirited,'' that we were ``cutting,'' ``slashing,'' going to ``destroy Medicare,'' we were going to ``starve children to death.'' I did not hear any proposals from the other side about a balanced budget, about saving Medicare, about reforming welfare, about all the things that now we seem to want to focus on. Just this very evening, I sat up here in the House and listened to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] say that we disliked Federal workers and even the military. I heard a lot of individuals talking about how extreme and how terrible we really are because we want a balanced budget. The question I have tonight: How can we trust, how can we trust the President when he has told us so many times that he is going to do this, and he is going to do that, and he does not follow through? How can we trust individuals that want to use that type of rhetoric and not get to a real debate, and then talk about how that we should keep our words and our conduct within the parameters of civility?

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I think that argument could be used in the other direction that the President is holding us hostage to send him appropriation bills that he would sign. It works in the same way. Are we supposed to, in the House and the Senate, pass legislation that will fit the desires of the President? And if he does not get those, then he is going to hold the Government hostage, the Government workers. It works the same way. He vetoed those bills. He promised that he would work with the Republican Congress to come up with a balanced budget before the end of the year. Before the end of the year. He signed it and said he would do it, and he did not do it. And he vetoed three bills, Commerce, Interior, VA-HUD. If he would have signed those, the Government would be in operation for the most part.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

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

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. In a moment I will yield to the gentleman from Florida. But I would like to say this is exactly why we cannot have a good, honest debate. This is why it is hard to put trust and faith in our colleagues when there is rhetoric that is so accusatory. As I said, all evening I sat back here and listened to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] say that we disliked Federal employees, we disliked Government, we even disliked the military. One gentleman said that we were lunatics, that we were extremists, that we are out of control. That is not constructive debate. That is getting it down to a level where I think it is every destructive. I think misquoting our Speaker is another area of being very destructive in trying to reach a good debate and a good dialog. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, I want to yield to the gentleman from California for just a minute. I think he made some instructive, gave us some instructive information a little while ago about Mr. Panetta and his proposal. I think if you look at Mr. Clinton's proposal, you know, I do not think we are that much different.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. You know, this is the bottom line: 40 years of tax and spend with no offer of a balanced budget, and we are continuing to hear from the other side that we are extremists, that we are mean- spirited, that, as one gentleman said this evening, that we were lunatics, that we are completely out of control. This Government is $5 trillion out of control because liberals in this House for 40 years spent money that they did not have, and they want to continue to do that even though they talk about a balanced budget, and that, you know, that is not fiscal responsibility. That is not common sense. Where will the Interior workers be in the year 2012 when every tax dollar will be consumed by entitlements and interest on the debt?

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

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. The President not only signed his name to that continuing resolution that the gentleman voted for, I believe, and I voted for to allow Government workers to go back to work, with a promise from the President that he by the end of the year would come up with a balanced budget, scored by CBO, that would balance over the next 7 years, buy the end of the year. Where are we? We are past the end of the year. Where is the President? Four budgets that he has offered later that did not balance. You are right. He is the gentleman that stands in the way of the Government workers from going back to work.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. May I respond?

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying I appreciated the remarks from my friend from Illinois. But I think we have to look a lot at what the President presented as a budget this year, the first budget, the second budget, the third budget, and the fourth budget. None of those balanced. I think what we have to look at is where those budgets take us into the future, where we are going to be 10 years from now, 7 years from now, 5 years from now. Those deficits start to return and start taking us toward more debt and increasing debt. So, it is great that the deficits have gone down. That is a little help toward looking at the future. But we have to get serious about what we are going to do in the next 7 years, and that is the President needs to give us a balanced budget now, one that will preserve and protect the future generations. That is all we are asking for, and I hope that the President will be forthcoming, be very serious about a balanced budget and just cut the rhetoric, just do the job.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. My question is when, though.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I want to also take a minute to respond to the gentlewoman from New York. The CEO's that said we cannot tell what the future is going to bring as far as the economy is concerned, that is true. But we know for a fact that if we continue spending the way we are spending, if we cannot slow the rate of growth in our spending to $12 trillion over the next 7 years, if we fail to balance the budget, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] was talking about earlier, that we have to do it now, we have a window of opportunity to do it now, if we do not do that, I mentioned a while ago in the year 2012 every tax dollar will be consumed by interest on the debt in entitlements. In the year 2030, when my 13-year-old daughter is approaching my age now, the deficit for 1 year, we know, projected out there, the deficit for 1 year would be over $4 trillion. That is a deficit for 1 year approaching what our debt is now. The Lord only knows what the debt would be then. We will never reach that point. We will be facing economic destruction in this country if we do not get control of our spending. We have to do it. Now, what we have to do is say, here is $12 trillion over the next 7 years, now what are our priorities? How are we going to divide the pie up? We need to get around the table and to make those decisions. We have to slow the rate of Medicare, because if we do not, we will lose Medicare in 7 years. We are going to have to control Medicaid or we are going to lose it. All of the programs that are so important to this Nation and to the people of this Nation we have to slow the rate of growth or we lose it. I have parents that are 78 years old. I want them to have Medicare in 7 years from now. I hope they are still living then; I hope there is Medicare for them. I hope that for my sister and for my other relatives, and for Members of this House, myself, that there will be Medicare one day, but it is not going to be there if we do not act responsibly now. We do not have time to delay it. We have to make some tough decisions. It is about today. It is about the next generation also. But I am concerned that there are those who are looking at it as the next election. We cannot worry about that. We have to worry about it today, what is good for this Nation and for the people of this Nation.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is strange that day in and day out we keep hearing from the President and from his liberal friends that come to the well of the House and talk about how they want a balanced budget. But to hear them talk, $12 trillion over the next 7 years is not enough. They want a balanced budget, but they are not willing to balance it. I think they want an unbalanced budget, just like they have had for the last 26 years. More spending, more spending. And let me say this: In the year 2012, what are they going to do when every tax dollar will be consumed by entitlement and interest on the debt, and there is no future for our children and grandchildren? What are they going to do then? It is time we get serious about a $5 trillion debt. It is time that we get serious and not play these games. What are you willing to do to get a balanced budget?

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it seems we keep hearing the word ``extreme'' and ``mean-spirited'' and that we are ``gutting'' the welfare program, but I just want to address that just for a minute. Mr. Speaker, I am holding an editorial by one of the fine newspapers in Kentucky, the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer. In a Tuesday editorial they say, ``The Republicans have a sensible idea in moving decision- making authority closer to the frontlines,'' but then they make the mistake so many on the left do when describing our plan, just as the previous speaker, they suggest that it will fail because it spends less money than the current system. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Republican welfare reform will increase spending by one-third over the next 7 years from $83 billion to more than $111 billion. So, I say to my friends on the left, and to the Messenger-Inquirer for whom I have a great deal of respect: If you like moving power back home and want more welfare spending, you have got it. True, we may not be spending as much on welfare as you would like but $5 trillion over the last 30 years shows just throwing money at the problem is not the answer .