Ron Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be on the floor today for consideration of the bill S. 1762. This bipartisan legislation keeps the interest rates on college student loans at their current and unprecedented low levels. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this bill. This is solid legislation that provides for the continued availability of affordable student loans. The extension of current low interest rates is necessary to ensure that students can continue to obtain the financial assistance needed to meet postsecondary education goals. The current student loan interest rate formula, set to expire on July 1, 2003, provides students and their families with an affordable way to pay for an education that might otherwise not be possible. A variety of educational and financial institutions, including the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority, strongly support S. 1762. Stabilizing interest rates now will secure educational opportunities for the future. I am pleased by the broad support this legislation received.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in my congressional district, I missed rollcall votes No. 2 and No. 3. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The basic question tonight, Mr. Speaker, is where do jobs come from. If the Members will indulge me, I want to give some of my personal experiences. Tonight the other side of the aisle has indulged in the old political rhetoric of class warfare. That is kind of getting old. It is over and over and over again that we hear it. Let me tell the Members about my history. I was born in eastern Kentucky in the mountains, in a log cabin. My father was a tenant farmer. He had to work his way up to get a card as a pipefitter in a union. He just retired a few years ago from that. He had to suffer through several recessions where he was out of work, and yes, we certainly appreciated the unemployment check. But number one and most of all, he wanted his job as soon as he could possibly get it back. I worked for a steel mill. I was a United Steelworker, belonged to the union. There were times that I was out of work and had to depend on the unemployment check. I appreciated that. But I wanted my job back. If I had the choice of extending my unemployment and the economy being stimulated through some tax credits and some tax incentives for the steel company I worked for, or my father would have chosen more unemployment or getting some stimulus into the economy where the construction jobs would start back up, do Members know what he would have chosen and what I would have chosen? I would have chosen the stimulus to those companies, those big, fat corporations that provided me a job. That is what we are talking about tonight: People want jobs, not unemployment checks. But we will help them. We want to help them. We want to help them with health care, we want to help them with unemployment checks, but number one, we want to help them get their jobs back; and those that have jobs, to keep their jobs. My son, my daughter-in-law, work in a manufacturing company right now. If we do not do something about this economy, they are in danger of losing their jobs. Let us do something tonight to protect their jobs and put people back to work. That is what America needs.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me the time. Once again, we have heard some revisionism of history. Just recently, I have spoken on this House floor. I came here in 1994 when the Democrats had the majority. They had just passed in 1993 the highest tax increase in the history of this country, planning on balancing the budget. But when I got here, they were running a $200 billion deficit, and those deficits were going to be there as far as the eye could see. In 1995, we took the majority, the Republicans; and we said we were going to balance the budget. We were going to cut taxes; and after debating that issue in 1997, we finally got enough votes in the House, got some bipartisan support, and we got the President to sign it into law, President Clinton. That budget was not supposed to balance for 5 years. Actually, it was not supposed to balance until this year. That was the plan. Do my colleagues know it balanced in a year. Why did it balance in a year? Why was that such a surprise? How did that happen? I will tell my colleagues why it happened. It was because we cut capital gains taxes. That is why. It infused billions of dollars into the economy. Now we want to cut them just a little bit more to stimulate the economy once again. I would like to cut them a lot more, but we are going to do what we have to do. And we are going to cut them a little bit. That will help, I think, bring this economy around as quick as anything, but once again, we believe that if we give businesses, small businesses the opportunity to make a profit, that they can create jobs in this economy. What do the Democrats want to do in this substitute? Once again, just like in 1993, they want to increase taxes. They want to increase taxes by $90 billion more. Who will it hurt the worst? It will hurt the small business, the ones that provide more than half of the private workforce in this economy. We cannot have that. We have to cut taxes. We have got to allow them to have some relief so that they can provide the jobs that this country needs, and they need them now.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of ethical stem cell research that uses adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Life begins at conception, and the use of embryos for research destroys young life. I support the use of adult stem cells, not just because no young lives are lost, but also because research using adult stem cells has already produced exciting results. Large Scale Biology Corporation, a biotechnology company in the Second District of Kentucky, has produced a growth factor using tobacco-based plant proteins that causes adult stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. Using their patented method, Large Scale Biology Corporation has successfully produced breast cancer and leukemia vaccines in conjunction with a joint Navy-NIH research team. We all want to see diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's cured, so let us support a proven alternative that we can all agree on and is not controversial. I urge my colleagues and President Bush to support funding for adult stem cell research and oppose life-destroying embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard provides a number of vital services to protect and defend our Nation's coastal areas and waterways. H.R. 1699 authorizes funding to conduct search and rescue efforts, vessel safety compliance, as well as wildlife promotion and protection. I am particularly supportive of the funding increases provided through H.R. 1699 that will increase the Coast Guard's drug interdiction operations.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I attended my daughter's high school graduation and was therefore not in Washington, DC. Had I been present in the House Chamber today, I would have cast my votes in the following manner: Rollcall 154--``yes'', approving the Journal for June 6, 2001; rollcall 155--``yes'', passage of H.R. 1699, Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2001.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Armey amendment, which restores all private school choice provisions back into H.R. 1. We are about to start testing our schools to gauge their success at educating our children. But what is the impetus for them to change if parents cannot take their children to better schools? Many of America's children are stuck in failing schools and are being deprived of a better future because they have nowhere else to go. This amendment provides the means for parents to rescue their children from failing schools and send them to institutions that will successfully equip them for the future. School choice is the heart of this educational reform, and it is successful as Milwaukee's school choice program has proven. Yet opponents of school choice are kowtowing to teacher unions and thus sacrificing the future of our children on the altar of politics. Support the Armey amendment and rescue our children from failing schools that are depriving them of successful lives.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Hyde-Smith Amendment. Once again, we are debating the use of federal tax dollars for abortion. in a poll taken last year, Fox News surveyed 900 Americans and found that 55% of them believed that abortion was wrong, with 15% not sure. Why are we using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion when the vast majority of Americans don't agree with it? I am also amazed at the other side's argument that reversing the Mexico City policy will save lives! It does exactly the opposite by murdering children who just happen to have not yet been born. Don't let their rhetoric fool you! We do provide quality family planning for overseas family groups, and keeping the Mexico City policy in place will further protect the newest members of these families. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Hyde amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is totally correct, Mr. Speaker. We have an energy crisis in this country today because for the most part it is self-imposed because of the extreme views of some people in this country about the environment. Now, of course, no one is opposed to clean air, clean water, safe working conditions. We all want those things. But there has to be some common sense applied when we deal in these areas. We need some good scientific data; we need cost analyses, risk assessment, due process built into what we do concerning our environment and how it relates to our economy and to our energy. As the gentleman just stated, this has cost our economy, it has cost the working people in this country thousands upon thousands of jobs. Since 1990, as a matter of fact, more than 100,000 jobs have been lost due to lower domestic oil and gas exploration and production. And then we can multiply that probably several times over when we look at all of the other industries, the timber industry, the coal industry. If we look at what has happened, we certainly, I think, have seen a self- imposed energy crisis; and it now is affecting our economy, costing more jobs. Every time someone pulls up to a gas pump today and they see $2 per gallon gas and every time they get their electric bill and every time they get their gas bill or home heating oil bill, that has an effect on our economy and on the ability of my constituents and citizens across this land on the bottom line, how are they going to make ends meet. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman from Tennessee just mentioned, why are we in this mess? What has caused this energy crisis? What has caused the problems dealing with our timberland? Well, it is because there are those who have stood in the way of progress in this country and they have stood in the way of doing the right thing in defending some extreme point of view. When we look at the energy crisis that we are facing today, the question is, How did we get into this mess? Well, number one, there have been no major oil refineries built in 30 years. There are 36 refineries that have been shut down since 1992. The refineries that we have now are operating at the highest level that they probably can, but current gasoline inventories are below the average level. What we have cannot create enough gasoline. It is a matter of the law of supply and demand. There is not enough supply for the demand in this country today. In 1992, our U.S. oil production, or since 1992, our U.S. oil production is down 17 percent, but our consumption is up 14 percent. And nearly 60 percent of our oil is imported. So here we are. We are dependent on foreign oil. We cannot get enough oil, and if we were able to get enough oil at this point, we do not have the refinery capacity to produce the gasoline. So it does not take too much reasoning to figure out the problem we are in here. We just do not have enough supply for the demand, and it is hurting our Nation. It is causing some real problems. As the gentleman just said, it is hurting the people that our workers, our middle class, our poor, because they depend on the ability for low-priced fuel. We are going to see more problems. What is the answer? I guess that is the question, What is the answer? Well, we have a great supply of oil in Alaska. We have great supplies of oil off of our shores; and with the technology that we have today, we have the technology to go in and get those oil reserves without hurting the environment. Mr. Speaker, this is the problem. We have come a long way since the 1970s in producing technology that protects the environment, but allows us to have the energy resources we need to keep our economy moving in the right direction. But there are those that are extreme, the extreme environmentalists. They do not want to use the technologies. They do not want to do anything. They want to make sure that not one renewable resource like a tree is touched; they do not want to go in the direction of common sense. They want to stake out these extreme positions and stand there. The sad part about it, there are many here in Washington that want to support that extreme point of view, and they do not want to do what we have to do, and that is go after the resources we have and use those resources, the oil, the coal, and the natural gas. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the information that is put out by some of these extreme groups says that this is pristine forest and a beautiful landscape, and it is the last great frontier. I have a picture of the area that would be drilled. Like the gentleman said, it is 2,000 acres. It would be about the size of Dulles Airport where the drilling would take place. With the technology that we have today, there would be no harm done to the environment. Here is a picture of that pristine, beautiful landscape. It looks like the moon. There is nothing there. It is amazing. If we look at some of these other areas, yes, they are beautiful landscapes, but this is the coastal plain, ANWR, where the drilling would be done. I think there has been some false information put out about what that area looks like and the damage that would be done to wildlife. The efforts that would be put in place there to get that 30-year supply of oil would certainly, with the technology we have today, would certainly do no harm to that environment. What would this mean to American workers if we go after that oil, if we start to work on our own domestic supplies for energy? I was reading in the Washington Times yesterday that the energy plan that the President is talking about would call for building between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants and spending $150 billion on new pipelines and transmission facilities, creating millions of jobs for carpenters plus energy, electrical, and construction and operation and maintenance workers all over this land. It would create a lot of jobs to get us back, really, to where we need to go for our energy supply in this country. But if we do not, if we do not go after what we have that God has blessed this Nation with, then there are going to be a lot more jobs lost because of this extreme view. And I think, yes, here in Congress we should, in a bipartisan way, come together and work for the good of the American people and not let this be a political football. But there are already those, our friends across the aisle, that are saying the way out of this mess would be to conserve our energy. Well, we would have a tough time conserving our way out of our energy crisis at this point, especially when we are about 1,900 utility power plants behind, we are depending on 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and we still do not have enough. We do not have enough refineries. Yes, we can do some more conservation, but the bottom line is, we have to go after the supply to meet the demand for this country and meet the needs of our economy for the 21st century.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Speaking of the Kyoto treaty, I was in China a few years ago. I was in Sian, China. The smog, coal, smoke in that city was so bad that the people, the citizens of that city, had to wear like surgical masks. We could not see for the pollution. In the Kyoto treaty, it is my understanding that they were exempt from the environmental restraints that we would have been placing ourselves under. That did not make a lot of sense to me. We have done a good job in this country with technology, we have done some good things with our environment, and new technology and reasonable regulations can make increased consumption of our energy supplies possible and continue to decrease pollution. But there has to be, again, some common sense built into it. In Kentucky, I can use Kentucky as a good example, through clean coal technology, we use a lot of coal in our utilities, and we have the lowest or I think probably the second- or third-lowest rates for our electric utility bills of any State in the Nation. But through coal technology, we have really reduced emissions, and in fact, it is almost as clean now as the natural gas being used in other utility companies. So with clean coal technologies, we have been able to increase coal by 195 percent over the last 30 years, while cutting coal air emissions by one-third. So we have a 300-year supply of coal, and we have done the right things in being able to use that energy source, but no one wants to reward that. They want to take it even to a greater extreme and say, basically, no coal, no oil; we are going to have to move on to some alternative energy sources that will not meet the demand that we have today. Again, it comes back to getting rid of the extremism and getting into a scientific-based commonsense approach to how we are going to deal with our energy supply in this country. We are blessed and we need to use those blessings to benefit our population here in this country. I think it is certainly time that we start looking at the handwriting on the wall and today start turning the situation around. I think you can compare the situation in Kentucky and California. We have new power plants coming online. We have the energy. We have low- cost energy, so we could do that across this country, but we have to start. Mr. Speaker, 1,300 or 1,900 new power plants over the next 20 years to just get us to the supply we are going to need in order to provide the electricity for this country, if anything, stands in our way and that does not make sense. We are hurting our economy, and we are hurting the working people in this country.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Here are the people who are being hurt by these high energy prices. The gentleman just mentioned the dairy farmers in California having to pour the milk out because they cannot run their operation, keep the milk without the electricity. But farmers are doing their spring planning, an expense that they have to bear for diesel fuel and for gasoline. Those costs are really cutting into, really, a very much shrinking margin that they have to deal with anyway. In fact, most of our farmers today, with the prices of grain, are fighting a losing battle. Then when you add these fuel prices on top of that, it is just a disaster for them. The gentleman mentioned the low-income people. They cannot possibly afford these high energy costs, yet back when this started to happen in the winter, when the costs of heating oil and the costs of natural gas to heat their homes, some people were getting these enormous bills, they could not even afford to make their house payments because of the fuel bills that they were having to come up with. Of course, we all know about the $2-per-gallon gasoline. That is projected to get worse through the summer. This just is not fair. It is not right because of a small group that have had their way for the last 30 years. Now they have put us in a situation where our people, the citizens of this country, are not being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. The economy has been running in a magnificent way, but it is in danger of putting the brakes on the success that we have seen for the last, goodness, 20 years in this country of prospering and growth in our economy in ways that we may not have ever imagined. But now we are facing a situation where we could have some problems. We do not have to. We have the resources, and we have the supply, so we need to go after it. Yes, there are going to be some long-term efforts that we are going to have to make, but there are some things that we can do now. We can start to remove some of the regulations that are causing some problems in getting our energy sources.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would love to know the numbers. How many jobs have been lost? How many jobs has this movement cost the workers in this country? How many automobile workers? How many construction workers? How many miners? How many timber workers? How many laborers have lost jobs because of this very extreme position on the environment? It has to be thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of jobs that have been lost. More are going to be lost if this energy crisis takes our economy in the wrong direction. I think with what we are seeing today with the slowdown, it is a direct result of this energy crisis, of the costs of energy. You cannot have $2-a-gallon gasoline and the costs of oil and the costs of natural gas without it affecting the economy. I think that we are seeing a direct result of the energy costs. How many more jobs will it cost? It is the working people that are going to be hurt. It is those folks that get up every day and go out to work and they have to provide for their families. They pull up to the gas station and, gosh, there is $2-a-gallon gasoline, and it could be getting worse. I think this is what is happening because of this self-imposed energy crisis. But this can be turned around. Yes, there is no short-term solution. But in the long-term, this can be turned around, and it can provide a lot of employment for a lot of people in this country. So I think we certainly have to be good stewards. We have to use good science. We have to make sure that we continue on the path of keeping our environment clean and sound. But we have the technology to be able to use our resources and to make sure that the people in this country are able to live their lives to the best that they can live. To have anything at this point to stand in the way of that, I think, would be a tragedy, especially when there was no real need for it to happen.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. There has been a lot of polling data over the years; and the question is, would you prefer clean water as opposed to more oil exploration or clean air as opposed to more increased utility power companies? When one asks that question, of course we all want clean air. We all want clean water. We all want safe working conditions. But the question should have been asked, do you want to be able to have your automobile? Do you want to be able to have reasonable prices for your energy? Do you want to have the living standards and conditions that you are used to? Do you want running water in your home? Do you want to be able to flip a switch and get the lights to come on? The American people want that. I think as we are seeing in California today, they are in danger of losing the ability to flip a switch and have their electricity. They are in danger of having hot water because they do not have their hot water tanks generating heat. So there is going to be some dire consequences to the extreme position that these environmentalists have taken over the last many years and put the American people in a very tough situation if this continues. That is why we need to start turning it around now. Yes, continue to work very hard to use the technology and to create new technologies to make sure that, yes, when we explore and when we drill for oil, that the environment is protected; yes, that when we use coal, that it is burned cleanly and efficiently so that the environment is protected like it is being done now, natural gas, so forth. Yes, we want those things. But these extremists, they have a Walden Pond mentality. They want to go out by Walden Pond and give up all, evidently, the conveniences that our forefathers have provided for us, that my father worked hard to provide for his family and on back. They want, for some reason, to think that that is evil to be able to have the standard of living that we have today because it is going to destroy planet Earth. Well, the reality is that we are not going to destroy planet Earth. We do have the technology. We do have the opportunities to provide the energy resources that the people of this country need and do it in the right way, the environmentally correct way. But get rid of the extremism and make sure that we are not going to sacrifice the workers of this country and their jobs and take away from their families.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 586) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the exclusion from gross income for foster care payments shall also apply to payments by qualified placement agencies, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward bill which updates and simplifies the Tax Code as it relates to foster care families. Under current law, foster care families are given a tax exemption on the payments they receive through a state-run foster care program. The current law was enacted in 1986. The law recognizes that if you are willing to open your heart and home by participating in foster care, you should receive this exemption. It is that simple. Over the years, however, States have changed the way foster care services are delivered and many are privatizing or contracting out some or all of their services. When this happens, and a private organization participates in the State program, the tax exemption for families becomes confusing and, in some cases, unfair. Specifically, the exclusion is dependent on a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the foster individual, the type of entity that places the individual, and the source of payment. If the payments are found not excludable because a private entity is participating in one or all of these factors, the foster care provider is then required to keep extensive records of every expense made on behalf of the foster individual in order to qualify for the exclusion. As my colleagues can imagine, these rules are extremely confusing. In fact, many accountants have difficulty interpreting these rules for families; and as a result, families are discouraged from participating in foster care. This problem is created simply because current law is outdated and no longer reflects the changes States are making in their business practices. Mr. Speaker, States should be encouraged to be innovative and responsible in their business practices; but more important, foster care families should not be penalized as a result. My bill, H.R. 586, simplifies current law to ensure that the exemption is there for all foster care families regardless of how their State foster care practices change and regardless of the age of the individual. My bill recognizes the increasing role of private agencies in State foster care plans and also requires these agencies to be licensed and certified by the State in order to participate in a State foster care program. Again, Mr. Speaker, my bill simplifies and provides fairness for the Tax Code for all foster care families, and I urge my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), a good friend and colleague.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, I want to be as partisan as my colleagues across the aisle. There they go again. They say they want tax relief, but actions speak louder than words. Their history: Big spending, big taxes, big government, and they are fighting with all their heart, mind, soul and body to stop tax relief. That is the bottom line. The sad part about this is that the President offered a hand across the aisle in a true bipartisan spirit for their help to give the American people a refund on their money. What did he get in return? A partisan slap in the face. I think that beyond a shadow of a doubt what has been displayed here today with the Democratic dilatory tactics, the American people can see what the Democrats are all about. They have never seen a tax cut that they like. They have never seen a tax increase that they have not liked. They have never seen a big government spending bill that they would not vote for. Mr. Speaker, let us get the money, the tax money, out of Washington and in the pockets of the American people. Families need help, not Washington bureaucrats. If the Democrats refuse to help and Republicans have to do it alone, so be it.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Talk about historical revisionism, the former speaker talking about 1993. Well, I remember 1993. The Democrats had had Congress for 40 years. We had $5 trillion in debt, $200 billion deficits every year. The taxes kept going up. The deficits kept going up. So I do not think they were handling it very well. It seems to me, over the last 6 years since we have taken the majority in this House, the deficits have been eliminated. The surpluses are going up. The taxes are going down. We have not voted for any new taxes in 6 years. But let me just say this. The other day, when we were debating the Marriage Penalty Relief Act, many on that side kept saying, oh, gosh, yes, this will destroy the Social Security, it will take money away from that, Medicare, prescription drugs. All this is a disaster. We cannot give any money to married people and their families. Today they are saying we cannot give any tax relief to senior citizens because it will destroy Social Security and Medicare and all this. But the reality of it is, right after we had that debate on the Marriage Penalty Relief Act, we had foreign aid come up. Every speaker, one right after another, could not give enough money in foreign aid. They did not worry about prescription drugs. They did not worry about Social Security. They did not worry about Medicare. They wanted to pile on more money. Nothing, nothing harmed them there. When we talk about bigger and more government programs, there is just, you know, it is fine. We can just spend all the money we want. But that is what got us into trouble to begin with. As we are having these trillions upon trillions of dollars in surplus rolling in over the next many years, we need to allow the American people that are living under a debt burden of 40 percent of their income of local, State, and Federal taxes some tax relief. It is about fairness. It is about letting our senior citizens keep more of their money and our married families, also.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, where did we get the marriage penalty tax? Where have we had the tax burden placed on our shoulders in this country, where the average family pays 40 percent of their income in local, State and Federal taxes, a big chunk that of the Federal taxes, where did we get all of these taxes? When I came here to Congress in 1994, the Democrats had control of the Congress. In 1995, Republicans won the majority. And since 1995, we have not passed one tax increase, not one. We have cut taxes, but we have not passed a tax increase. Where did we get all of these taxes that are burdening and pressing down on the American people today? One of the worst taxes is the marriage penalty tax. Where did we get them? Mr. Speaker, the Democrats controlled, our friends on the left, controlled this House for 40 years. And also when I got here, we had a debt of $5\1/2\ trillion, and the spending was going up. The deficits were $200 billion. I think they have never seen a tax that they did not like. I do not think they had ever seen an opportunity to spend more money that they did not like. They love taxes. They love big spending, and every time we try to do any tax cuts in this House, it is always a battle. It is always a fight. They never want to cut taxes. Why? Because, friends, there is not enough money in this world, I think, for them to spend. There is not enough projects for them to think up to spend the taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, it is time to start cutting taxes. I remember also in 1995 when we wanted to balance a budget, they fought us every inch of the way. I remember in 1995, when we wanted to cut taxes, they fought us every inch of the way, fought us all the way up until finally in 1997, the President finally signed into law a Balanced Budget Act that cut taxes. Actually, we balanced the budget. You know what? We have been paying down debt. We paid down $140 billion since 1997 in paying down the debt. Mr. Speaker, they said it could not be done. They said we could not balance the budget. They said we could not cut taxes, but it has been done. We have walled off Social Security. Medicare was going to go bankrupt in 2 years, in 2 years, from 1995. We reformed Medicare. Finally, in 1997, the President signed it into law, and Medicare now is safe for 25 years, 25 years into the future.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Representative Ernie Fletcher in introducing the Low-Income Widows Assistance Act of 2000. You may be as amazed as I was to discover that if a senior has a dramatic drop in income, whether do to the loss of a spouse or other reason, no one in government alerts the senior that they may be eligible for assistance with their Medicare premiums and co-pays. This means the 82-year-old senior who just lost a spouse and is now responsible, many times for the first time, for taking on the tasks of paying the bills on a drastically lower income may not know they can get much needed help with medical expenses. It just makes sense to me that Federal Government should seek to aid such seniors when they need the help the most. Especially when the Social Security Administration presently has the ability to identify those who may qualify for assistance. Since 1988, Congress has provided financial assistance to qualified low-income seniors in covering costs under the Medicare program. Despite the growing number of elderly taking advantage of the assistance, reports have shown some are being left out because they are not aware of the programs. The Social Security Administration reports that 40 percent of non- married women (a category that includes women) rely on Social Security benefits for 90 percent of their income in comparison to only 18 percent of married couples. Amazingly, one-fourth of non-married women relies on Social Security retirement benefits as their sole source of income. This legislation seeks to make these seniors aware of the additional benefits they may be entitled to because of their income by directing the Social Security Administration to mail a notification to Social Security recipients it identifies as possibly being eligible. This notification will instruct the beneficiary on whom they can contact to determine whether they qualify for assistance. It further directs the Social Security Administration to provide the states with a list annually of names it has identified to aid the states in enrolling these deserving seniors. I hope my colleagues will join with me in making the government more consumer friendly to our seniors who need our help by cosponsoring this legislation. It will be a great comfort to our seniors, many of who are widows, to know they can receive assistance with important and often expensive medical costs.