Ron Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Federal tobacco lawsuit is bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The case is not about the law, but about the Federal Government extorting money from an industry that it does not like. Which industry will be the next victim of this punitive action? The tobacco industry, in accordance with the terms of its 1998 settlement with the States, has changed its marketing, advertising, and business practices. The industry is also paying the States billions of dollars. Now the Justice Department wants a share of this revenue stream for the Federal Government and is willing to further sidestep to try to get it. The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veterans health care funds to pay for its baseless lawsuit. This suit claims the Federal Government and the public were deceived about the health risks of tobacco products. The same Federal Government that claims it was deceived has required health warnings on tobacco products since the 1960s. The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco use. The American people are not as clueless as this lawsuit claims, people know the health risks associated with use of tobacco products. It is absurd to claim ignorance on this point. Adult consumers have the right to make risk judgments and choose the legal products they use. They also need to take personal responsibility for those choices. No Federal law gives the government authority to collect Medicare funds as proposed in this lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, Attorney General Reno testified to the Senate that no Federal cause of action existed for Medicare and Medicaid claims; suddenly she has changed her tune under pressure from the White House. The Justice Department on the same day it announced the civil lawsuit ended its 5-year investigation of the tobacco industry without making any criminal charges. Last year the Congressional Research Service concluded that with a full accounting of costs of lifetime government-funded health care and benefits for tobacco users and tobacco excise taxes, the Federal Government actually nets $35 billion per year. There are not costs for a Federal Government to recover. It is already making money off of tobacco use and this administration only wants more. The absurdity of this legislation by litigation aside, one issue should be clear to everyone today, veterans health benefits are not intended to pay trial lawyers in a politically motivated lawsuit. This is not a rider. This is not special treatment. This is Congress carrying out its role in appropriating how tax dollars are to be spent.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Linder/ Collins amendment. Despite a ruling last year from the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Environmental Protection Agency continues to press states to enforce its new air regulation standards. The Appeals Court had declared the new standards unconstitutional delegations of legislative powers. The EPA has now appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court will hear the case. In the meantime, however, EPA has notified governors that they have until June 30 to designate areas that will not meet the new air standards or the EPA will do it for them. EPA should not be pushing states to enforce regulation that have been struck down in court and whose future will be decided by the Supreme Court. Five counties in my district have been put on notice that they will not be in attainment of these new rules. How can these counties become non-attainment areas of a regulation that has been declared invalid by the Appeals Court? The EPA does not know what the outcome of the Supreme Court decision will be, yet it is acting as though the air standards are law, instead of respecting the decision of the Appeals Court. Edmonson County in my district is a rural area with little industy. Much of the country is home to Mammoth Cave National Park. Yet Edmonson County faces the possibility of becoming an ozone non-attainment area. The area easily meets the current ozone standards. Requiring the state and local government to plan for a possible regulation is a waste of resources. At the same time, the area's efforts to attract industry to provide more and better paying jobs to its residents will be hampered by EPA's decision to move forward with null and void standards. Western parts of my district around Owensboro are facing a similar situation. Local officials are left in limbo, being told they will have to take steps to change ozone levels in their counties but also knowing that without the Supreme Court's approval, the regulations they are planning for will not take affect. This is not prudent policy making. Officials in Kentucky stated in media reports that the technology is not available to determine the source of ozone, only its current location. The counties in my district that could become non-compliant will likely become so because of moving ozone. If the science is not available to know where the higher ozone comes from, how are these areas expected to eliminate it? All of us support clean air. But air standards must have a scientific background, be set according to the law and be evaluated on their costs and benefits. Regulations for regulation's sake, such as these, produce no benefits. EPA's job is to enforce the law, not create it. EPA should enforce the provisions of the Clean Air Act, but it should do so in accordance with the law and scientific standards. EPA has not presented sufficient reasons for regulations beyond the 1990 standards. Until the Supreme Court has issued its judgement on the validity of the EPA's 1997 air quality regulation, we need to support this amendment and keep state and local communities from bearing the costs of this invalid regulation. Until a regulation that can legally be enforced is in effect, this designation process must be postponed. This is a simple, common sense request. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise to support this amendment that helps provide for our states and local communities. While I support all the funding increases in this amendment, the increase in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program is of particular interest. Last year, we approved an amendment to increase PILT by twenty million dollars and came out of conference with a ten million dollar increase. This amendment will add ten million dollars to last year's appropriation, the base amount in this legislation. The federal government has a responsibility in law to help support local governments in areas where the federal government owns the land, thus removing it from the local tax base. We all know, despite the hard work and tough decisions of Chairman Regula's subcommittee, that appropriations for PILT have not kept up with the authorized amounts. An increase of ten million dollars will not close this gap, but it will provide much-needed assistance to local governments. For the residents and government of Edmonson County in my district in Kentucky, the support from PILT is essential. Edmonson County is home to Mammoth Cave National Park. While the park draws many visitors to this rural area, Edmonson County's small population and low per capita income make it difficult for local taxpayers to provide basic services, from waste management to emergency services. The support from an increase in PILT will keep the cost of these services more bearable to local taxpayers. PILT funds help support a 24-hour ambulance service for the National Park and county residents. Federal land ownership has contributed to the isolation of much of Edmonson County. When major transportation routes expanded in the past, the county was bypassed in favor of areas with a larger property tax base to support the projects. Equitable PILT payments are needed to add to the tax base Edmonson County has given up for the National Park as the area faces new challenges for economic development. The situation faced by Edmonson County is far from unique. As the federal government continues to place responsibilities on local governments, PILT increases are necessary to relieve local taxpayers across the country, most of them in rural areas. The Bureau of Land Management reports property taxes would provide local governments with one dollar and forty-eight cents per acre. PILT payments are far below that amount per acre. It is difficult to explain to constituents why PILT appropriations have not followed the amounts authorized when they have not even come close. It is difficult to explain why Congress creates new programs when we are not funding the ones already in existence. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. By doing so you add $10 million dollars to PILT to aid local taxpayers in rural areas and fulfill a pledge made by the federal government.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Funds appropriated in this legislation are intended to provide for the veterans who have served our nation so well. The funds in this legislation are intended for housing assistance for Americans in need. There are funds here for environmental protection and our space program. What this legislation is not intended to do is pay for politically motivated lawsuits for the Justice Department. The Justice Department is not prohibited from using its civil funds to pay for this lawsuit. It is not prohibited from asking Chairman Rogers' subcommittee to allow for reprogramming of its funds. However, this Congress needs to send a clear message to the Justice Department that it IS prohibited from using veterans' health care money for this lawsuit, and that it is required to live with the appropriations Congress approves. The federal tobacco lawsuit is bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The case is not about the law, but about the federal government extorting money from an industry it does not like. Which industry will be the next victim of this punitive action? The tobacco industry, in accordance with the terms of its 1998 settlement with the states, has changed its marketing, advertising and business practices. The industry is also paying the states billions of dollars. Now the Justice Department wants a share of this revenue stream for the federal government and is willing to further sidestep Congress and take money from veterans programs to try to get it. The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veteran's health care funds to pay for its baseless lawsuit. This suit claims the federal government and the public were deceived about the health risks of tobacco products. The same federal government that claims it was ``deceived'' has required health warnings on tobacco products since the 1960's. The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco use. The American people are not as stupid as this lawsuit claims-- people know the health risks associated with use of tobacco products. It is absurd to claim ignorance on this point. Adult consumers have the right to make risk judgments and choose the legal products they use. They also need to take responsibility for those choices. No federal law gives the government authority to collect Medicare funds as proposed in this lawsuit. Three years ago, Attorney General Reno testified to the Senate that no federal cause of action existed for Medicare and Medicaid claims. Suddenly she has changed her tune under pressure from the White House. The Justice Department, on the same day it announced this civil lawsuit, ended its five-year investigation of the tobacco industry without making any criminal charges. Last year the Congressional Research Service concluded that with a full accounting of costs of lifetime government funded health care and benefits for tobacco users and tobacco excise taxes, the federal government actually nets $35 billion per year. There are not costs for the federal government to recover. It is already making money off of tobacco use, and this Administration only wants more. The absurdity of this legislating by litigation aside, one issue should be clear to everyone today. Veterans' health benefits are not intended to pay trial lawyers in a politically-motivated lawsuit. This is not a rider; this is not special treatment. This is Congress carrying out our role in appropriating how tax dollars are spent. This Justice Department must follow Congressional intent. If it wants to fund this suit, it should do so with its funds, not the veterans'. Please vote no on this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, many of those on the other side of this debate that are against this tax relief keep talking about a $50 billion cost to the government. It is going to cost the government. My question is, whose money is this? It is the farmer down in Kentucky and the States across the country that get up every morning before the sun comes up, and that never get in from the fields many times until way after the sun has gone down, that put in 40, 50, 60 years of their life of hard work in the fields to provide something for the next generation, for their sons and for their daughters. It is their money. They are the ones who are working to earn it, to provide something for their heritage, something that will allow the farm produce in this country to continue. As my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) mentioned a little while ago, urban sprawl is eating up the farmland because the hard work of farmers is going back into taxes. That is totally unfair.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3660, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, as I have done a number of times since 1995. Despite the failure of this Administration to sign this legislation into law on previous occasions, I am pleased this Congress continues to send, by an overwhelming majority, the message that partial birth abortion is wrong. We continue to debate this issue, even though the facts are quite clear. Partial birth abortion is not a medical procedure. Doctor after doctor has testified that partial birth abortion procedure is never medically necessary. Our former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, has gone on to conclude that the procedure poses a significant threat to the mother's health and future fertility. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, this legislation does provide an exception should a case arise when a doctor performs the procedure to save the life of the mother. Overwhelming support exists to ban partial birth abortions. Since Congress began voting to ban partial birth abortions, numerous state legislatures have voted to end them. The House of Representatives has consistently overridden President Clinton's veto of this legislation, and I am confident we will do so again. However, before President Clinton follows through on his veto threat, I would like him to take another look at the support that exists to ban this abortion procedure, the opinions of doctors and his conscience. I understand the issue of abortion is difficult for many. Well- intentioned people will continue to disagree. How long, though, can our society continue to justify its denial of the right to life to the defenseless unborn? The value of life has been consistently cheapened. Partial birth abortion is a graphic example of the worst of abortion, in which a child is killed after being partly delivered. Congress must continue to take a stand to uphold the value of life, especially in these instances in which life is so blatantly being destroyed. I urge President Clinton to take a courageous stand and support this legislation when it is sent to him. I urge my colleagues to continue their support for human life and for a ban on partial birth abortions.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dr. H.G. Bryant, Jr., of my district on the occasion of his retirement from Swedish Match North American, Inc., an employer of many in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Bryant has been with Swedish Match for more than 30 years in a number of positions. He began his career in 1968 as a senior scientist with Liggett Group and ends his career as vice president for research and development, quality control and leaf procurement of Pinkerton Tobacco Co., which is now Swedish Match. During his time at Swedish Match, Dr. Bryant has made a number of valuable contributions to the Owensboro area. He has served on the Kentucky Wesleyan College board of trustees, the Owensboro Community College Foundation and the Kentucky Council on Economic Education. His civic contributions to the community also include support of the United Way and local food banks. Dr. Bryant has been a good friend to many in the community of Owensboro, as an employer and a civic leader. Today I acknowledge his commitments and achievements, along with his family, and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we discuss in Congress where both sides of the aisle can agree. The importance of marriage, I am convinced, is near the top of that list. That is why I am surprised by this debate today. We have an opportunity to wipe out a tax problem that otherwise penalizes married couples. We are helping married couples who are building families, pursuing the American dream of homeownership, and couples that contribute to our economy so that they and their families have a safe and prosperous country to live in. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, say that this bill gives those families too much. They are talking about families where the husband and wife are just starting out; the ones that can barely afford the new starter house, the ones that sacrifice in order for one parent to stay home so that their children have the best possibility for beginning in life. The Democrat side says those families do not need a break. They get too many breaks in the Tax Code already. I encourage my friends to talk to those families, and I doubt they would agree. Mr. Speaker, is the idea of a tax cut that upsetting to some of the Democrats? I guess they did not get the title as tax and spend Democrats for nothing. Are some in this body more concerned with maintaining a perfect scoreboard for raising taxes on Americans than helping struggling new families? We have a projected surplus of over $3 trillion. Is the need to feed their spending habit so strong that they cannot spare a small part of that to really fix this Tax Code problem? Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope not. I encourage my colleagues to support the married couples and vote yes for H.R. 6.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again voice my support for the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act. It is very fitting that we are considering this legislation today because this Saturday, February 12, will mark the 191st birthday of one of the greatest Presidents to ever serve our Nation. Lincoln occupied the White House through 4 of our country's darkest years and was faced with the prospect of uniting our country torn asunder by civil war. Through his leadership and perseverance, Mr. Speaker, the Union was preserved. While it is impossible to overlook his contributions to America from the White House, there is much more to the story of Abraham Lincoln that endures in the hearts and minds of his countrymen. Lincoln was born to humble roots in a log cabin in Hodgenville, Kentucky, located in the Second District. He was largely self-educated, yet became one of our country's greatest statesman with his eloquent use of the English language. He clung to the highest ethical standards throughout his political career, earning the nickname Honest Abe. He was fiercely devoted to his family, and he put the interest of his country above his own, which ultimately led to his assassination. He was born into obscurity but earned the gratitude and love of every American. Lincoln's story is one of America, and should serve as an inspiration to all of us. It is a story posterity needs to learn, and it is incumbent on the Federal Government to use all available resources to preserve his legacy. Lincoln has always been one of my heroes of history. In fact, his portrait, along with many other likenesses, graces my Washington and District offices and serves as a reminder to me of my duty to my country and responsibility to those who have elected me to serve. I urge my colleagues to support the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act. As Edwin Stanton said upon the President's death, ``Now he belongs to the ages.'' We have an opportunity today to make sure President Lincoln remains a man for the ages by passing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this commission will conduct its inaugural meeting in Hodgenville, Kentucky, the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3085) to provide discretionary spending offsets for fiscal year 2000, as amended.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3085.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it was not too many years ago in the State of the Union message that the President said that the era of big government is over. But since that time, the President has not lived up to those remarks. The President currently would like to see a tax increase. The President would like to spend more money than what is available. And the President has only two or three choices. Yesterday, the President vetoed a foreign aid bill because it did not spend enough money. He wanted an extra 2 or 3 billion dollars to spend. Mr. Speaker, the money that the President wants to spend should not be taken and spent on the backs of the people less able to spend that money. This resolution today I stand in opposition to, because the American people are spending too much of their money in tax dollars now. The average family spends 40 percent of their income in local, State, and Federal taxes. The average family spends more money in taxes than they do in food and clothing and other necessary needs. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution; and I ask that the Congress reject any more taxes and any more spending by the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield further blocks of time.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act. Abraham Lincoln is rightly considered one of America's greatest Presidents. He occupied the White House through 4 of our country's darkest years and was faced with the prospect of uniting our country torn asunder by civil war. Through his leadership and perseverance, Mr. Speaker, our country and system of government was preserved. While it is impossible to overlook his contributions to America from the White House, there is much more to the story of Abraham Lincoln that endears in the hearts and minds of his countrymen. Lincoln was born to humble roots in Hodgenville, Kentucky, located within my district. He was largely self-educated, yet became one of our country's greatest statesmen with his eloquent use of the English language. He clung to the highest ethical standards throughout his political career, earning the nickname Honest Abe. He was fiercely devoted to his family, and he put the interests of his country above his own, which ultimately led to his assassination. He was born into obscurity but earned the gratitude and love of his countrymen. Lincoln's story is one of America, and it serves as an inspiration to all of us. It is a story all posterity needs to learn, and it is incumbent on the Federal Government to use all available resources to preserve his legacy. To borrow a quote from one of his most famous addresses, ``It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.'' I urge my colleagues to support the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act. As Edwin Stanton said upon the President's death, ``Now he belongs to the ages.'' We have an opportunity today to make sure President Lincoln remains a man for the ages by passing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this commission will be able to conduct one of its meetings in Hodgenville, Kentucky, the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, we may have heard the recent propaganda coming out of the White House and from the liberal tax-and- spend Democrats here in the House. The word is that a tax cut would take money from Social Security and from paying down the debt. The truth is the tax cut that the President vetoed would have allowed the American people to keep $792 billion of their money over the next 10 years. It would have not touched Social Security. It would pay down the debt by $2.2 trillion. The truth is, as the former speaker said, for 40 years, a liberal tax-and-spend Democrat Congress spent the Social Security trust fund money as fast as they could on every big government program they could think of. To hear them today say that they want to pay down the debt, that they want to save Social Security, is an absolute joke. They never have; they never will. What they want the money for is to spend, and to spend it on bigger and more intrusive government.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is really humorous tonight to listen to this debate. For 40 years the liberal spending Democrats had majority in this House. When I got here, in 1994, we had a $5 trillion debt. Now, they had control of spending for 40 years. How did we get a $5 trillion debt? For 40 years they did not mind spending out of the Social Security Trust Fund for every kind of program they could think of. They did not worry about balancing the budget then. They did not worry about paying down the debt. Now, all of a sudden, they are worried about it. That is very, very funny. Very strange. Well, our plan, the Republican plan, sets aside $1.9 trillion, 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus money, to protect Social Security. One hundred percent. What are they setting aside? Twenty-seven trillion dollars is going to come into the Federal Government over the next 10 years. What is wrong with allowing the American people to have $792 billion back of their money?

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of salaries for Members of Congress. I have spoken time and again about my frustration of having to deal with the issue of automatic cost of living increases for Members of Congress each year. This year was no exception. Representing a mostly rural district in Kentucky, I believe that I am fairly compensated for my services. It is an honor for me to represent the Second District. It is important, at a time like this, for us to not lose sight of the fact that in the past several years we have ask America to sacrifice in order to balanced the federal budget. While we, in Congress, have made great strides toward this goal, our job is not yet complete. I continue to be concerned with the process in which these cost of living adjustments are made. I would rather Congress take an up or down vote on all pay adjustments for Members and have cosponsored legislation to eliminate the cost of living provision all together. This was the manner in which Congress did business for over one hundred and fifty years. This is the first time in five years I have voted for a cost of living increase. I have to recognize that many of my colleagues are not fortunate enough to live in a low cost area such as the Second District of Kentucky. This increase is not just for Members of Congress but for the thousands of federal judges and civil service administrators which are leaving at an alarming rate for the private sector. This exodus is depriving the government of some of the best and brightest that we have to offer. Mr. Speaker, while I supported the increase for these reasons this time, I will not accept it personally. I intend to contribute my share of the cost of living increase to worthwhile causes in the Second District of Kentucky.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I think the question in this debate boils down to one thing: Who do we trust? I arrived here in 1994, at the end of the 40-year period of Democrat rule of this House of Representatives. They were running 200-plus billion dollar deficits and created a $5 trillion debt. Government was growing at an exponential rate. They were ready and willing to place upon this country a government program that would have taken us over the line, a government program called socialized medicine. There was not enough money for them to spend. They just kept taking it out of Social Security and Medicare, wherever they could get the money to create larger government all the time. To hear them talk about debt reduction is amusing. Talk about revisionist history. We listened to it last night. When I came here, I signed a contract, the Contract with America, that would balance the budget, that would cut taxes, that would reform welfare, that would reduce the size of government and allow people to keep more of their money. They fought it every inch of the way. Yes, there was a government shutdown. Know why? Because the President would not sign the Balanced Budget Act that he is so wonderfully willing to take credit for today. The question is, who do we trust? They did not get the title ``tax-and-spend'' liberals for nothing. I think it is a very appropriate title and it still sticks with them today. The question is who do we trust? It is like if we believe them, it would be like asking Jessie James to guard the bank vault for a little while. I do not think we want to do that. I do not think we want to go back to 40 years of tax-and-spend liberals.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, last year two hundred forty-one of us voted for an amendment to increase Payments in Lieu of Taxes by $20 million. Unfortunately, this addition for PILT was left out of the conference report. This year we are again asking Congress to address the Federal Government's responsibility to help support local governments in areas where the Federal Government owns the land, removing it from the local tax base. Federal landownership may not be as large an issue in my State of Kentucky as it is in others; however, for fiscal year 1998, local governments in Kentucky experienced nearly a $70,000 PILT loss from the previous year. I support fossil fuel research and development projects, as these investments help make our energy more efficient, affordable and clean. However, the standard rate of PILT payments is authorized to increase from $1.47 per acre to $1.65 for this fiscal year. Full appropriation to meet this amount would have to more than $200 million at minimum. This amendment to provide a 16 percent PILT increase helps us to begin to reduce the continued shortfall between PILT authorization and appropriations. Kentucky county governments that receive PILT payments depend on these funds to help provide basic services, from education to waste removal. Edmonson County in my district is home to Mammoth Cave National Park. With a population of just 11,000 and a per capita personal income of $12,000, the importance of PILT payments to the continuation of county services at a bearable cost to the taxpayers can not be understated. PILT funds help pay salaries and administrative expenses of the county. They help support a 24-hour ambulance service for the National Park, as well as county residents. Federal land control has contributed to the isolation of many areas in Edmonson County. When major transportation routes expanded, the county was bypassed, in favor of areas with a larger tax base to support the projects. Equitable PILT payments are needed to make up for the tax base Edmonson County has given up for the National Park. The concerns of Edmonson County are not unique. As the Federal Government continues to place responsibilities on local governments, PILT increases are necessary to relieve taxpayers nationwide. The Bureau of Land Management reports property taxes would provide local governments with $1.48 per acre on average. PILT payments amount to just more than 17 cents an acre. Last year's PILT payments were 54 percent less than authorized by the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act. This law requires the Federal Government to compensate local governments as an offset in lost property taxes due to Federal ownership. A majority of us voted to increase PILT payments last year. Please join me again in a vote to add $20 million to PILT to help often- struggling rural areas provide vital services to their residents.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1802. Each year 20,000 young people leave the foster care system when they turn 18 years old. All young people face new challenges on their 18th birthday, but as we learned in committee, many foster care individuals face individual hurdles. By continuing our efforts to fight fraud and abuse in the SSI program we are able to return more money to the States for independent living programs. These programs identify adolescents who are getting ready to leave the foster care system and help them achieve self- sufficiency. The SSI fraud prevention provisions in this bill build on the seccess of the 1996 welfare reform bill. For example, SSA, Social Security Administration, is required to share its prisoner database with other Federal agencies to prevent the continued fraudulent payment of other benefits to prisoners. Under H.R. 1802, the prisoners and fugitives are barred from SSI eligibility for 10 years if they fail to report receiving payments while in prison or violated a repayment schedule. Representative payees who do not return SSI payments made after the death of a beneficiary would be held liable for repayment under this legislation. H.R. 1802 also cracks down on doctors and lawyers convicted of SSI fraud. So by stopping fraud and abuse, we can benefit the needs of foster kids. In closing, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their work on this important legislation. It is my hope my colleagues will join me in voting for H.R. 1802.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1162, which designates a new bridge under construction in Owensboro, Kentucky, the ``William H. Natcher Bridge.'' The House passed similar legislation in both the 103rd and 104th Congresses. Unfortunately, the other body never acted on these bills. During consideration of those bills, however, many Members from both sides of the aisle shared their experiences about working with Mr. Natcher. They talked about the dedication and hard work of my predecessor. I encourage my colleagues to take a moment to look at some of those comments. As most Members who served with Mr. Natcher can attest, he was a statesman and a true gentleman. While he will always be remembered on Capitol Hill for never missing a vote during his many years in service, he will be known in the Second District for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. Mr. Natcher was dedicated to making this bridge a reality due to the benefits it would bring to the Second District. He guided this project through Congress and laid the groundwork to assure its completion. The Commonwealth of Kentucky has already designated this bridge in honor of Mr. Natcher. Now it is our responsibility in Washington to do the same. This bill gives us the chance to recognize his efforts at the Federal level and provide a visible reminder of this true friend to Kentucky. I hope my colleagues will join me and the members of the Kentucky House delegation in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose this amendment. This budget contains a net tax increase over the next five years, a time in which we are realizing surpluses. This tax increase comes largely from one source: regressive, excise taxes leveled on those least able to afford them. Americans are overtaxed. The government does not need more of our money to carry out its spending plans, lengthening the era of big government. Contrary to what we have been told, this era is far from over. Nearly have of these new taxes, $35 billion worth, come from a 200- percent tax increase on tobacco products, 55 cents on a pack of cigarettes. This tax increase hurts hard-working family tobacco farmers in my district and all of Kentucky. These taxes will take away the livelihood of these working families, who depend on their tobacco crops to pay for their farms, their homes and their children's education. But this excise tax increase issue is not confined to states with tobacco farmers. It has a negative impact no matter what your opinion is on the use of tobacco products. This huge tax increase in all states falls most heavily on those least able to afford it. Who will pay these new regressive excise taxes? Working families who earn $30,000 or less will pick up nearly half the tab, even though they account for just 16 percent of total national family income. According to the Federal Trade Commission, legal adults purchase 98 percent of all cigarettes. New regressive taxes on these adult products are not acceptable in this budget. This administration has stated it wants to help bring prosperity back to the family farm. So do I. But I do not understand how taxing our family farmers out of business will achieve this goal. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me and oppose all attempts by this administration to finance its big-government budget on the backs of tobacco farmers and other working families.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Representative Philip English to introduce the Vaccinate America's Children Now Act. This legislation seeks to lower the excise tax on vaccines from $.75 per a dose to $.25 per a dose. Congress imposed the vaccine excise tax in 1986 after forming the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to provide compensation to children who develop complications due to vaccination. In the beginning, various tax levels were set up for each vaccine and the amount of tax was based on best guess estimates. Due to a building surplus in the fund, in 1993, the House Ways and Means Committee, directed the Administration to study the fund and report back to Congress with recommendations regarding the surplus. The report, which included the approval from all areas of the public health community, called for a new flat tax of $.51 per vaccine. With the surplus now over $1.25 billion (twice what it was in 1993) the time has come to lower the tax to $.25 per dose. As part of the 1997 Balance Budget Act, Congress created a flat tax of $.75 per dose for each vaccine it covered thus ending the varying tax levels for different vaccines. We did not, however, deal with the larger problem of over funding the trust fund. In 1997, the trust fund was estimated to receive $180 million in tax revenue. The interest alone, was $59 million and is more than enough to pay all claims that are filed. At the $.25 per dose rate, tax revenues would be over $50 million a year with equally as much, if not more, coming from interest. This still brings in over $100 million in revenue each year to the trust fund. Since the states are a major purchaser of vaccines, they stand to save a substantial amount of money that can be used in other areas. In fact, the Commonwealth of Kentucky could have saved over $830,000 in 1997 and Representative English's state of Pennsylvania would have saved over $1.16 million. This legislation was unanimously endorsed by the guardian of the trust fund, the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines and was supported by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers when it was introduced in the 105th Congress. I encourage my colleagues to join Representative English and myself in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that ensures that all foster care families are treated fairly under the Tax Code. The Fairness for Foster Care Families Act simplifies the current rules for foster care payments and recognizes the increasing role that charitable tax exempt agencies and private for-profit agencies play in the placement of foster care children and adults. In 1983, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to permit certain foster care families to exclude from taxable income payments they receive to cover the additional expenses incurred for caring for the individual. Unfortunately, the exclusion depended on a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the foster care individual, the type of foster care placement agency and the source of the foster care payment. Congress revisited the tax treatment of foster care payments in 1986. Although the process was simplified to an extent, some families were still left out. Those families could only receive a tax deduction if they maintained detailed expense records to support such deductions. Under the Fairness for Foster Care Families Act, foster care providers would avoid this burdensome record keeping process. This bill guarantees that the payment is tax-free regardless of the age of the foster care individual or the type of agency that places the individual provided that the agency is licensed and certified by the State. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate having the following statement printed in the Congressional Record in the appropriate place: Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 1999, I was returning from Moscow where I participated in meetings with leaders of the Russian Duma as part of a Congressional Delegation trip led by my colleague, the Honorable Curt Weldon. The purpose of our trip was to discuss missile defense issues and specifically H.R. 4. As a result, I missed Rollcall votes 51, 52 and 53. Had I been present, I would have voted YES on all three votes. Rollcall No. 50--H.R. 891, Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act. Vote--``Yes.'' Mr. Speaker, the Maritime Commission provides needed protections for U.S. shippers and carriers through its oversight and licensing activities. I support this bill which allows the Commission to improve services, address the Y2K computer problem, and continue its mission. Rollcall No. 52--H.R. 774, Women's Business Center Amendments Act. Vote--``Yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 775 which will allow more women to benefit from the Women's Business Center program currently operated by the Small Business Administration. This measure simplifies matching fund requirements and increases authorization levels for the program making it easier for communities to establish centers that will educate and encourage small business growth. Small businesses in this country exemplify the true meaning of what is called the ``American Dream''. This measure takes another step toward preserving that dream by encouraging more Americans to start their own business. Rollcall No. 52--H. Con. Res. 25. Vote--``Yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I recently met with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders who are working in earnest to gain a peaceful solution along the West Bank. These efforts include negotiations about the formation of a permanent Palestinian State. Recent statements by PLO Leader Yassir Arafat, regarding his willingness to declare an independent Palestinian State along the West Bank, are threatening those fragile negotiations. Should Mr. Arafat follow through on his statement, he will be violating the Oslo accords and dragging the peace process towards hostility. I support this non- binding resolution expressing the sense of Congress that decisions about the Palestinian controlled land along the West Bank must be made through the negotiation process. It also states that Congress opposes any attempts, outside of the negotiation process, to establish a Palestinian State. The agreements made through the peace process must be upheld by all parties involved.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4570, the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1999. H.R. 4570 is comprehensive, common sense legislation which incorporates a number of resource bills that will ultimately benefit 36 States throughout this great Nation of ours. Once again, some environmental extremists are determined to torpedo any legislation that proposes to alter the status quo, despite the fact that many compromises have been reached to address their concerns. Since the tactics of fear can be a powerful weapon, I believe a careful review of the legislation will assure my colleagues that H.R. 4570 is no threat to our environmental interest. It does, however, mark a major step in resolving some important public lands issues and also presents the 105th Congress a great opportunity to help fulfill the dreams and plans of so many Americans who cherish our national parks and our national historic and natural resources. Many States and communities across this country worked very hard to establish these historic heritage areas, such as Automobile National Heritage Area in Michigan and Indiana, and the Midway Atoll as the national memorial to the Battle of Midway. Still other measures will further protect our great national resources by providing for expansion and improvements to our National Parks. I am particularly grateful to the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) and the members of his subcommittee for supporting legislation which would add a very important property to the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, Knob Creek Farm of Hodgenville, Kentucky, the boyhood home of Abraham Lincoln. The preservation of Knob Creek Lincoln Farm, as important as it is, represents only a single part of H.R. 4570. The Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1999 allows us to move forward with what I believe are balanced proposals to protect and more effectively manage our National Parks, national forests, scenic rivers, and other public lands. Also, it offers improved access for Americans to enjoy the vast beauty of our national resources and proud history throughout our country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and comprehensive legislation.