Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue a challenge to my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I would like for someone to explain to me whether it is your view that Republicans are extremists for wanting to limit spending and exercise fiscal responsibility or is it your view that Republicans are irresponsible for not exercising this fiscal responsibility? Fiscally irresponsible or extreme. Which is it? I have heard both charges repeatedly in the recent weeks; and I am curious to know, for those in the party that has been dedicated to expanding government for the past 40 years to tell me what is their idea of fiscal responsibility? I am also a bit curious to know when they think the American taxpayer should get some tax relief. After all, if one cannot make the case for tax cuts now in the face of $3 trillion budget surpluses over the next 10 years, just what would it take to convince you that tax relief is possible? I think it is clear that the party that wishes to limit the size of the Federal Government and the party which is careful with the taxpayers' money is the real party of fiscal responsibility. So which is it? Are Republicans extreme or fiscally responsible in our desire to limit Washington spending?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, some say that America lacks true heroes, and I disagree. Last Friday, I had the privilege to see a young man, a constituent of mine, Navy Ensign Dan Johnson receive the Navy/ Marine Corps medal for heroism. On August 23, Ensign Johnson, a safety officer aboard the USS Blue Ridge, was working on a deck as the ship prepared to leave Pusan Harbor. During the course of that operation, a young sailor who was handling a towline attached to a Korean tug became entangled and was being dragged to what would have been certain death. Thinking quickly, Ensign Johnson jumped on the sailor and tried to free him, but he too became entangled in the line as it became tighter. In a final desperate attempt, Ensign Johnson was able to free himself and the sailor in the nick of time, but, in the course of doing so, lost both legs at mid-calf. The sailor lost a foot. In a time when there are too few heroes, Dan has proved that true heroes still do exist. His selfless acts will leave no doubt about his love and dedication to his service, his shipmates and his country. Dan embodies the highest standards of professionalism, courage and self- giving. The Navy should be very proud of this young man, as I and his family are. It is my hope that his actions will serve as a reminder of the sacrifices we call upon our young people to make while protecting our freedom and as an inspiration to everyone who now serves. Madam Speaker, I include Dan's citation for the Record. The Secretary of the Navy washington The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Navy and Marine Corps Medal to Ensign Daniel H. Johnson, United States Naval Reserve for service as set forth in the following Citation: For heroism while serving as Safety Officer on board USS BLUE RIDGE (LCC 19) at Pusan, Korea on 23 August 1999. While serving as the Station Safety Officer during a mooring evolution, Ensign Johnson took immediate action to save the life of and minimize injuries to a line handler whose leg was entangled in a tugboat's messenger line. Recognizing the imminent danger to the service member, Ensign Johnson ran to the member and attempted to control the line. The violent, jerking motion of the line entrapped both members and ultimately severed the lower limbs of Ensign Johnson. By his courageous and prompt actions in the face of great personal risk, Ensign Johnson reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. For the President, Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President vetoed the tax relief legislation passed by Congress. In the face of a $3 trillion budget surplus over the next 10 years, the President concluded that there was no room for any of it to go to the taxpayers. Liberals everywhere cheered. The taxpayers, on the other hand, did no celebrating. Wall Street crashed, the Main Street was told that small business would not be getting any help anytime soon. Those who are so ardently opposed to tax cuts do not do so because they want the money to go towards debt reduction, despite the rhetoric. If they were sincere, then they would not be proposing billions and billions of dollars in new spending, creating new entitlements, and expanding Government programs. They oppose tax relief because they want to grow Government. They want to spend the money. And they do not want us to spend the money. Washington knows best. That is their bedrock principle. Taxpayers will just have to wait for a Republican in the White House for tax relief to become a reality.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, today we will have the unique opportunity to cast a vote which will save the family dairy farmer, while ensuring that Americans continue to enjoy the highest possible quality of milk. H.R. 1402, which would require the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Class I milk price structure known as Option 1-A, will ensure that tens of thousands of American family dairy farms are not put out of business. Option 1-A does this by extending for one year the dairy price support program, as well as maintaining current minimum prices for fluid-use farm milk. H.R. 1402 will enable the American family dairy farmer to survive and hopefully prosper in the years ahead. While most industry in the United States continues to ride the wave of the largest economic boom in history, in my district, many family dairy farmers have been forced to give up their 4th and 5th generation farms. This is deplorable. Without the enactment of this legislation, more will go out of business--and for what reason--so all the milk produced in this nation will be produced by large Midwestern dairies. Fewer producers will mean less competition and higher prices. Don't believe the numbers that are being circulated by our upper Midwestern colleagues--Option 1-B will cost consumers in quality and price down the road. Let me give you some numbers which point to the huge significance of this legislation for my state. Last year in North Carolina, the dairy industry generated an estimated $572 million in economic activity. North Carolina has 10 Grade A milk processing plants. The total milk produced in the state last year amounted to 146 million gallons. As of July 1, 1998, there were 478 commercial dairy farms in the state. Cash receipts for the sale of milk by dairy farmers amounted to $187 million. Last year, there were 75,000 milk cows in the state, each producing an average of 1,947 gallons of milk. And Iredell county, which is part of my congressional district, has 71 farms which produced almost 5 million gallons of milk in the month of December last year, making it far and away the largest milk producing county in the state. Without H.R. 1402, the economy of North Carolina faces a loss of over half a billion dollars in economic activity, a loss of almost 500 dairy farms, and the devastation of commercial and family farming. Don't vote to devastate the livelihoods of these farmers by opposing H.R. 1402. Please support H.R. 1402 to ensure more low cost, high quality milk production in North Carolina and in the United States.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people do not think there is much difference between Democrats and Republicans. But when it comes to taxes, it is hard to argue that point of view with a straight face. Republicans want to cut taxes. We do not say the government should deny some people tax relief and offer tax relief to others. If you are a taxpayer, we think you should get some tax relief. Liberal Democrats want the government to pick and choose which taxpayers should benefit from tax relief. They will do everything possible to ensure that those who pay the most taxes and who are carrying most of the load do not receive any tax relief. To us, tax relief is a freedom issue. We think that fundamentally the people who earn the money in the first place are the best judge on how to spend it, and certainly better than Washington, who is eager to spend it for them. Americans are overtaxed. Which Americans? American taxpayers. We think it is time they receive some tax relief.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support for the compromise version of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, a tax relief package which is a consequence of our strong economy and the successful 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. The commitment to tax relief demonstrated by Chairman Bill Archer and the Members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and their counterparts in the other body, is the main reason we are debating this legislation today. Chairman Bill Archer deserves special recognition for his drive to return excessive federal income taxes to the American taxpayers. We have pledged to return to taxpayers only the surplus dollars generated from excessive federal income taxes. It is important to note that H.R. 2488 conditions the tax reductions on there being no increase in the public debt. Specifically, if this debt increases, H.R. 2488 would delay the next phase of tax reductions for one year. This so- called ``trigger'' was included to reassure voters that the tax cuts would be forthcoming only if the expected budget surpluses materialize over the next ten years. Even if this $792 billion tax relief would become law, Congressional Republicans expect to reduce the pubic debt from $3.7 trillion to $1.6 trillion over the next ten years (a reduction of over $2 trillion). The public debt is the debt resulting from the federal government's sale of Treasury bonds to mutual funds, individuals and foreign investors. The amount of public debt reduction will be twice the amount returned in tax relief. We will be paying down the public debt and, as a result, keeping interest rates low and the economy strong. Fundamentally, I believe this bill continues the progress Congressional Republicans have made in returning to Americans and their families more control over their lives and over the federal government. Unlike President Clinton who plans to veto this tax relief, we believe that our constituents can make better decisions about spending their wages than Congress, the White House and Washington bureaucrats. I support this historic $792 billion tax relief package which offers taxpayers a one percent reduction in all individual income tax rates and virtually eliminates the marriage penalty. In addition to provisions designed to reform pensions and enhance retirement security, H.R. 2488 would: expand education savings accounts, student loan interest deductibility and prepaid tuition plans; provide more money to school districts for school construction or renovation; make health insurance and long-term care insurance more affordable and accessible; provide an additional exemption for taxpayers caring for elderly family members at home; lower the capital gains tax and phase out the estate tax; protect child, education and child care tax credits by phasing out the alternative minimum tax; and allow a deduction to cover the cost of prescription drug insurance coverage for seniors once Congress passes Medicare reform. I welcome these changes in the tax code and those contained in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 which address employee stock ownership plans, or ESOPs. The compromise bill contains a provision (Section 2 of the ESOP Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2124) which would expand the deduction of dividends paid on ESOP stock. Such simplification of the tax code will be a welcome change for ESOP companies and their employees who wish voluntarily to reinvest their dividends in more company stock. Finally, I am grateful for the adoption of a Senate provision which addresses ESOPs set up by S corporations, ensuring that this change in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is not misused. If enacted, this change would resolve any unintended consequences of our 1996 and 1997 tax laws and ensure employees of S corporations can participate in ownership through an ESOP. Again, I am pleased by the positive leadership taken by Chairman Archer and the Ways and Means Committee to reward hard-working taxpayers and their families, small businessmen and women, and to boost employee ownership.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, taxes today are simply too high. The average American pays $10,300 every year in taxes to all levels of government. That is more than the cost of food, shelter, and clothing combined. Yet President Clinton continues to reject tax relief for hard-working Americans. If one is married and paying more in taxes than one should because of the IRS marriage penalty, the President says, tough. If one works hard all of their life to build a business so that one can pass it on to their kids only to fall victim to the death tax, he says, that is too bad. Along with across-the-board tax cuts for all taxpayers, the Republican Congress wants to provide badly needed relief from the marriage penalty and do away with the death tax. But the President says he will veto that. Rather than allow taxpayers to keep more of what they earn, he wants them to give more to Washington bureaucrats. By vowing to veto tax cuts, President Clinton is no longer rejecting badly needed tax relief, he is working his back on the hard-working American families.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, no American can be forced to contribute to political causes or campaigns with which he or she disagrees except one group, members of labor unions. Our committee had a hearing and heard from members of the U.S. Airways union in Charlotte, North Carolina. These men testified how that portion of their union dues went to fund the campaigns of candidates who were pro-abortion, a stance that they considered deeply was against their Christian beliefs. We ought to stop it now, and we ought to vote for the Goodling amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, many Democrats have stated that tax cuts would be risky. Well, of course they would. They believe the average Americans, to quote the President, might not spend it right. Is this not the perfect expression of a liberal mindset? They really do believe that money that people earn does not really belong to them. They do not trust people to spend it right, whatever that means. After all, we all know that Washington knows best. It seems clear to me that Democrats do not quite agree with the proposition that rich or poor the money people earn belongs to them, not the Government. In fact, liberals imply that any time the Government cuts taxes, it is doing everyone a favor, as if giving someone something. It is not giving anyone anything. It is merely taking less from what is already yours. So every time we hear a Democrat call a Republican tax relief package risky, just remember why they are doing so.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to get something off my chest. I just want to take a few minutes to air my opinion about our VA medical system. My older brother died in a veterans hospital 100 miles from his home. When a veteran is diagnosed with a terminal condition and is near death, why can that veteran not be allowed to spend his remaining days in a local hospital near his family and friends who will come and visit him? I would also like to criticize the treatment many of our veterans receive in VA hospitals and the expenditure of tax dollars on new VA construction, when many existing VA hospitals are underutilized with many beds empty. In Catawba County, North Carolina, when I was a county commissioner, we built a state-of-the-art 250-bed hospital for less than $8 million, complete with an oncology unit and outpatient unit. Now the VA is constructing an outpatient clinic in the mountains of North Carolina for an estimated $25 million. It is an expansion to an existing 300-bed VA hospital that is less than 50 percent occupied. Why should those tax dollars not be used to better utilize the existing underused space and transfer the remaining funds to provide the needed doctors, nurses, and medicine? Does anyone examine how VA capital expenditures are being made and whether they are needed or not? Point of Order

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, if you take a look at this chart here, you will notice that the Republican budget proposal will reduce the debt held by the public by approximately $2 trillion. You will also notice that the Republican debt reduction proposal bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to the rhetoric we are hearing on the other side of the aisle. Democrat after Democrat, over the past several weeks, has come down to the House floor and railed against the Republican tax cut proposal, claiming that it would do nothing for debt reduction, do nothing for Social Security, blah, blah, blah. But our proposal reduces the debt by $2 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office confirms this. Not only that, but the Congressional Budget Office scores our budget proposal as $200 billion better on debt reduction than the Democrat plan. In other words, our plan reduces the debt more than the Democrats do. How are we to take their rhetoric seriously? How can we possibly have an honest debate, when our budget proposal is routinely mischaracterized and misrepresented beyond any recognition? All I can say is thank God for C-SPAN.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 982. It is a very simple bill. It simply says that the National Academy of Sciences must complete its study on ergonomics and report to Congress before OSHA promulgates a proposed or final standard. Clearly, the will of the House is that an almost million-dollar study on ergonomics by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, should be completed before we rush to regulate. Science should precede regulation, not the other way around. Let me just summarize the following points in support of the bill: first, ergonomics regulation would be a substantially mandated cost on the American companies and the American economy. OSHA's own estimates show that draft regulation could cost an additional $3.5 billion annually. I believe that cost is greatly underestimated. Before we consider imposing this standard on the American people, let us have the scientific and medical proof to back it up. Second, there is no question that there is a great deal of scientific and medical uncertainty and debate about ergonomics. If OSHA regulates before the causes are understood, OSHA may very well regulate the wrong thing and impose a lot of unnecessary costs without benefiting workers. Third, Congress and the President agree that we need a comprehensive study of ergonomics by NAS. The purpose of the study is to inform Congress, the Department of Labor, employers and employees about the state of scientific information on ergonomics. Only then can we determine whether a broad ergonomics regulation is appropriate. To issue a regulation before NAS completes its study is an outrage and a gross waste of taxpayers' funds. Fourth, an appropriations letter does not take precedence over the will of Congress in calling for an NAS study. Finally, the fact that OSHA has worked on ergonomics for over a decade is irrelevant since Congress decided the issue needed further study. Moreover, the fact that there has been substantial study with no conclusions about ergonomics suggests that more study is needed before imposing a nationwide standard at a great cost. In conclusion, I urge the Members to vote for the rule and H.R. 987.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, my subcommittee had several hearings with specialists in these fields. This is what the experts said. For example, Dr. Morton Kasden, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of Louisville, testified that ``There is a lack of scientific evidence that using our hands repetitively causes so-called cumulative trauma.'' A quote on the chart from Dr. Stanley Bigos, professor of orthopedics at the University of Washington: We cannot provide a universal mandate without knowing specific dimensions that might work. How high should the bench be? How tall is too tall and too short? What about differences in age? Who will all of a sudden determine, without data, what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, borderline or punishable? From whose pockets will the costs come? As usual, they will probably come from the employees take-home pay. Do not be confused by those who want to oversimplify the model of the human body. Usually the human body does not mean you wear it out. Discomfort from spring gardening and spring training is not caused by damage but deconditioning of the winter rest. Dr. Howard Sandler, a former medical officer with NIOSH and a consultant to OSHA, said Considerable interest and concern has been focused on the relationship between work and musculoskeletal disorders. At the present time, the risk factors, their interactions and their thresholds for causing effects have not been sufficiently identified. Once this information is established, risk can be effectively predicted and appropriate preventive actions can be instituted across a wide range of business and industry. Research presently underway should help to establish the scientific data which is currently lacking. Finally, on the chart, Dr. Morton Hadler, who is from the University of North Carolina: Any attempt to construct an ergonomic standard as a remedy for regional musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace is not just premature, it is likely to be counterproductive in its application and enforcement. Finally, Dr. Michael Vender, who is with the American Society of Surgery of the Hand: ``With our present level of understanding, we cannot distinguish between on-the-job or off-the-job activities because the quantitative relationships'' are bad. This proves that we need a complete study.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say probably for those people that do not know, I probably have been to El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala more than anybody in this Congress. I would like to say that we just got back a month ago on a trip where we went to Venezuela and El Salvador. I had a very interested Democrat who, everywhere we went, asked about the School of the Americas, the School of the Americas, the School of Americas, obviously looking for some statement by somebody down there about how bad the School of the Americas was. The commander of the Army in Venezuela, I thought, gave the best answer. He was an alumnist. He said that the best training that his Army got was in the School of the Americas. He spoke glowingly about it. He also said that there was no way that he could take his troops that basically had no training at all and make good soldiers out of them without some training outside of his own country. He really spoke positively about it. In El Salvador, the same question was put by the same person to ex- President Alfredo Cristiani. Those of my colleagues that do not remember, he was the President of El Salvador when the war was really going hot, when the priests were killed. He was the person who kept the peace process going. In his statement to us, having been questioned about the quality or what was the value of the School of the Americas, he said specifically that he doubted that there was any possibility they would ever have had peace. Because before the rebels were willing to settle in El Salvador, the whole commanding force of the Army had to voluntarily quit. Most of those people that voluntarily quit and left their jobs, and I know one of them now who was the commander, complete commander of the Army, is running a filling station in El Salvador, San Salvador. But without the voluntary effort on their part to leave, without any effort to try to keep their own power and so forth and to back off and allow the peacemaking between the rebels and Alfredo Cristiani government, it is hard to believe it could have been done better.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate. The Republican budget contains $200 billion more in debt reduction than does the Democrat proposals. You heard that right. Our budget is better on debt reduction than the Democrat budget is according to the Congressional Budget Office. But one would never know it from listening to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of whom seem to be positively incapable of describing our tax cut proposal accurately. Republicans call for both tax relief and debt reduction in our proposal. Indeed, our plan would reduce the debt held by the public by slightly over $2 trillion over the next 10 years. To call that irresponsible is reckless or a bit odd. We have a balanced and fair plan that not only provides for debt reduction and tax relief, but insists on a Social Security and Medicare lockbox provision for the first time. One hundred percent of the retirement surplus would go to Social Security and Medicare. In other words, all FICA taxes would actually go towards the programs they were designed to go towards, Social Security and Medicare. Do Democrats really think that is reckless?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to go on record in favor of ``The Financial Freedom Act of 1999,'' a tax relief package which is a consequence of our strong economy and the successful 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. You will recall that this historic budget deal put us on the glide path to a balanced federal budget which we now expect to attain in the current fiscal year--much sooner than we promised the American people. This fact presents us with an opportunity--and an obligation to our constituents--to do the right thing with our nation's fiscal affairs. I applaud the House leadership and the Ways and Means Committee, ably chaired by our colleague from Texas, Representative Bill Archer, for their commitment to bringing to the floor for a vote ``The Financial Freedom Act.'' Equally important, I embrace the commitment we have made to spend two out of every three dollars of the expected federal budget surplus for retirement security--let me stress this important fact, Congressional Republicans have promised to protect Social Security and Medicare for our nation's seniors before we give tax cuts. We're keeping that promise by locking away surplus funds from retirement security programs. We have pledged to return surplus dollars generated from excessive federal income taxes--this is the message of ``The Financial Freedom Act of 1999.'' In addition to the relief for American taxpayers and their families in general, I want to take a minute to endorse the important changes in the tax code contained in ``The Financial Freedom Act'' to enhance retirement savings. For two years, I have advocated a sensible change to our tax laws related to employee stock ownership plans, or ESOPs. Specifically, the Ways and Means Committee included in the base bill a provision that would permit an employee participating in an ESOP to reinvest cash dividends paid on his or her stock for more company stock and permit the corporate payor of the dividends to take a tax deduction equal in value to the dividends. Current law permits the corporate payor of dividends on ESOP stock to take a deduction if the employee receives the dividends in cash, or if the employer uses the dividends to pay debt incurred to acquire the stock for the ESOP. So, oddly, current law does not permit the employee to voluntarily reinvest the dividends in more company stock. While there is a convoluted way to almost accomplish the same result (i.e., a tax deduction for reinvested ESOP dividends), it involves getting an IRS letter ruling, is limited in its applicability and causes administrative headaches in trying to coordinate the reinvested dividends with 401(k) elective deferrals. The confusion and needless regulatory burden of current law motivated me to introduce the very provision included in the Committee's bill in May 1997, in H.R. 1592, and to reintroduce this provision again this year as Section 2 of my bill, The ESOP Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2124). This provision is estimated to provide a new $200 million plus incentive for the expansion of stock ownership by employees. Let the record show that Chairman Archer's mark recommended the change in law, and that this action by the Chairman was the very first time, may I repeat, the very first time in the near 25 year history of ESOPs that the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman's mark contained a positive expansion of ESOP law. May I compliment the Chair and my majority colleagues because for most of the 25 years of ESOP legislative history, the Committee was controlled by the other party and it seemed that every time we turned around someone was trying to take away from ESOPs and employee ownership. It seems that up until 1995 all we ESOP and employee ownership advocates ever did was fight anti-ESOP ideas that were originating in the Committee. I am proud to see under the leadership of Chairman Archer that view of ESOPs and employee ownership change, as evidenced by the expansion of the deduction of dividends paid on ESOP stock that is included in this bill. And that motivates me to note that when the Clinton Administration put forth its tax recommendations for fiscal year 2000, once again we had a proposal to limit ESOPs, to take away a tax incentive for employee ownership. The Administration basically proposed to repeal the 1997 incentive for Subchapter S corporations to have ESOPs, and proposed a retroactive, unfathomable system of taxation for S corporations with ESOPs. As a Member who since 1990 has introduced legislation to allow S corporations to sponsor ESOPs, I am pleased that the Committee rejected this anti-ESOP Administration proposal. The S corporation ESOP reform finally became law in 1996 and was perfected in 1997. So, you can understand my concern when I saw earlier this year the Administration basically trying to unravel a piece of legislation in which I have had such a long-standing interest. I do take note that the pending tax legislation in the other body, which perfected the S corporation ESOP law in 1997, has a provision to ensure that the 1997 law is not used by film-flam operators to create tax-favored S corporation ESOPs that are not really spreading equity ownership among employees of a bona fide business operation. Having a great interest in this area, I would hope that the Committee, and those who go to conference with the other body on the ``Financial Freedom Act,'' would take a serious look that the anti-abuse provision in the other body's bill. Based on my knowledge of that anti-abuse proposal, it would resolve any unintended consequences of our 1996 and 1997 laws to ensure employees of S corporations can participate in ownership through an ESOP. Again, I am pleased to see in the bill before us today the positive leadership taken by Chairman Archer and the majority of the Committee for ESOPs and employee ownership.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the amendment of my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) which, as he has explained, would withhold military assistance from countries that do not support the U.S. position in at least 25 percent of the votes before the United Nations General Assembly. Let me stress that humanitarian aid and development assistance would not be affected. Many of my constituents question the amount of money the U.S. spends on foreign aid anyhow, including the billions we send to the United Nations. They question why we continue to send money to an organization wherein many of the recipients of that aid routinely vote against U.S. interests. And according to the statistics compiled by the State Department, that is the case. While the United States sends military assistance to fewer nations who oppose our interests in the U.N. than it did just a few years ago, we have further to go. If we are cutting popular programs at home to remain under budget caps, the American people should be able to expect that foreign aid takes a fair share of its cuts. The Goodling amendment is one excellent way to prioritize our foreign aid dollars, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, why is it so difficult for the other side to accurately describe the Republican tax relief package? Do we need to offer a prize to the first Democrat to acknowledge that we set aside $2 for Social Security and Medicare for every $1 of tax relief. Do we need to call 60 minutes and ask them to do a story on the first Democrat to admit that our budget contains $2 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years. Do we need to have a CBO analyst conduct seminars in their offices in order to prove that our budget sets aside 100 percent of retirement surplus for Social Security and Medicare? Do we need to hire interns fresh out of college to draw a picture of the Social Security lock box in order to illustrate the concept of locking away the Social Security surplus? I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what does it take? Day after day I hear the exact same line, the same false rhetoric to describe a Republican proposal that does not exist. Two years ago, it was Mediscare, and now this. It is truly sad.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 1995. The Federal Government only supplies about 5 or 6 percent of the money to run our local schools but supplies most of the controls on how it is used. As such, much of the funding is lost in the State and Federal bureaucracies. If local officials want to use Federal dollars to train teachers, reduce class size, or retain good teachers, they must do it the Federal way, or they do not get the money. The Teacher Empowerment Act mandates that 92 percent of the funds must go to the local level, not to the bureaucracy, and may be spent at local discretion if positive results can be demonstrated. This proposal sounds almost too practical to be a Federal program. As we debate the Teacher Empowerment Act, much will probably be said by the other side in opposition to the bill which consolidates the President's ``100,000 New Teachers'' programs and other programs into a single funding source. I would like to address this issue briefly. The bill requires that funds be used to hire new teachers and reduce class size. However, unlike the President's program, this bill allows localities to determine the correct balance between teacher quality and class size. The President's proposal actually limits the funds available to teacher quality initiatives to 15 percent of total funds. With various studies showing that teacher quality has a far greater impact on student achievement than does class size, I find the President's cap on funds available for improving teacher quality shortsighted and detrimental to improving student performance. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) said, a student can learn more in a class of 25 taught by a highly qualified teacher than in a class of 17 with a teacher who has few qualifications. Our children deserve to be taught by teachers who are qualified and prepared to offer their very best. By using Federal education dollars effectively as outlined in the Teacher Empowerment Act, we will move closer to that important goal. A school's strength comes, in part, from the quality of its teachers. Let us help our teachers be the best that they can be by passing this bill.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I testified before the Committee on Rules yesterday asking the committee to make in order an amendment that would be offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). This amendment would have required that the apparel receiving duty-free and quota-free treatment must be manufactured from U.S.-manufactured yarn and fabric, fabric which is cut in the United States. This standard now applies in the Caribbean area. However, the Committee on Rules did not see fit to make this amendment in order. Therefore, I cannot vote for this rule. Trade agreements should give American workers a fair shake, not hurt them. In its present form, H.R. 434, unlike NAFTA, does not do this. It poses a serious risk to our domestic textile industry and its employees. The bill does not prevent the illegal transshipment of apparel from other countries where countries now regularly exceed their quotas. This bill could throw thousands of U.S. workers out of jobs by allowing a huge flood of cheap Asian goods to move through Africa to the United States. It only requires that a mere 35 percent of the total value of textile and apparel products be added in the African countries in order to qualify for duty-free and quota-free treatment. Asian countries, particularly China, would be ready, willing and able to make up that remaining 65 percent. By requiring U.S. yarn and fabric as the Bishop-Myrick amendment proposed, this bill would have ensured that U.S. textile workers, not Asian textile manufacturers, get to produce the fabric that African workers turn into clothes. In addition, Africa would still get a huge boost since all the sewing, labeling and packaging would be done in an African country in order to qualify. In other words, the Bishop-Myrick language is a win-win for American workers and the workers in sub- Saharan Africa.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people say there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. But when it comes to taxes, it is clear that there are two quite different philosophies at work which guide the thinking of each side. Democrats believe that the tax system is primarily a way to redistribute wealth; that is to say, take what belongs to one person and give it to someone else. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the tax system is merely what is necessary to raise revenues for the constitutionally required functions of the Federal Government, which is principally to provide the common defense. Democrats believe that a system that redistributes wealth is more fair than a system whereby people are entitled to the fruits of their labors to the maximum extent possible. Democrats speak constantly of the fact that the wealthy, never defined, do not need a tax cut. Of course, by that logic a rich person does not need to be paid for any work that he performs. But they fail to recognize that the money earned by the wealthy or the middle class or whomever belongs to them. After all, they earned it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, once again, it is time for our infamous and often contentious debate on the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. In the years past, I supported cuts of the NEA based upon budget realities and concerns over questionable NEA funding choices. However, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the funding level included in the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act. Some people would like to see this funding level increase, while others would like to see the level decrease or NEA eliminated altogether. But I suggest that, in the light of the tight budget caps enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the needs of our Nation in terms of the arts, the funding level is on target. Over the last few years, Congress has helped to make NEA into a better organization. The NEA has instituted its own reforms to ensure that taxpayer money is used efficiently and wisely. Six Members of Congress now sit as nonvoting members on the National Council on the Arts, the governing board of the NEA, acting as an added check on the endowment's activities. I am one of these Members and have found significant and positive changes have been made in the NEA to address past concerns. There has been much controversy in the past over grants to individual artists whose work has offended the sensibilities of many of us. I am glad to report that these individual grants, except the literature fellowships, have been eliminated. Also, the practice of allowing third parties to gain access to NEA funds through subgrants has been terminated to ensure that the agency keeps control over the projects being funded. Applicants, like local museums and arts centers, must apply for specific project support, and changes to the project cannot be funded unless the agency approves such changes. In North Carolina, the NEA funds, in whole or in part, projects that I believe are beneficial to our citizens, like the North Carolina Symphony Society or the Opera Carolina or the North Carolina Museum of Art Foundation, just to name a few. Let us give the recently enacted reforms a chance to work so that NEA can help fund meaningful projects in our States.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, here is a fun trick we can play on our liberal friends, especially the ones who never tire of saying that the rich do not pay their fair share. In fact, this is a fun trick that we can play on most Democrats, with few exceptions. Ask them how much the rich pay in Federal income taxes. After they begin to look pale and ask, what do you mean, ask them what percentage of Federal income taxes are paid by the top 50 percent of income earners and what percentage of the taxes are paid by the bottom half. Our liberal friends will not answer that question. Of course, they do not have any idea what the answer to the question is, and of course, even if they did, they would never tell us. They would be very embarrassed to have to admit that the top 50 percent of income earners pay 96 percent of all taxes, 96 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay a whopping 4 percent. Those same liberals then will rant and rave and feign moral indignation that those paying 96 percent of the taxes, those who are carrying almost the entire load, should get any tax relief at all.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the latest government economic report estimates that the budget surpluses over the next 15 years will be larger than expected, much larger than expected. While the other side is busy celebrating the new opportunities to expand the Federal bureaucracy and create new Washington programs, conservatives are asking more fundamental questions about the budget surplus: To whom does it belong? Once that question is answered, it is easier to answer the question about what should be done with it. The surplus belongs, of course, to the taxpayers. Note the surplus does not belong to all Americans, it belongs to the people who sent the money to Washington to begin with. Now, if the Democrats have their way, that money will be spent. Many Democrats will talk about using it for debt reduction, but history does not inspire confidence. Anyone who claims that the liberal tax and spenders will not spend the surplus is invited to give me just one example of an instance when it did not happen.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker the President proposed a budget with $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see only a few short years ago. Republicans refused to accept his budget and insisted instead on a balanced budget, and the liberals called us the extremists. They called us mean-spirited. They accused us of being right wing. It is all so familiar. But now the President takes credit for what the Republicans worked for since 1995, just like welfare reform. No matter, Republicans have put America on the road to fiscal responsibility by balancing our books and starting to pay down the $5 trillion debt. Now it is time for some tax relief, too. Debt reduction and tax relief, that is what the budget surplus should go towards. Democrats have other ideas: No tax cuts. Those who believe the rhetoric about debt reduction are being naive and historically mistaken. They will spend the surplus. It will not stay in Washington, especially if Republicans are no longer in the majority.