Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion between the Democrats and the Republicans on the issue of retirement security. Just this past weekend a distinguished Member of the other body mentioned repeatedly that his father would not have known how to invest for his own retirement. He needed the government to do it for him. That same government that every few years tells us proudly they have fixed Social Security, only to discover that it is going bankrupt again. Mr. Speaker, the approximately 43 million Americans who own a mutual fund or retirement money invested in the stock market must really think that liberal Democrats take the Americans for fools. Or they might be laughing their way to the bank at the silliness of all these Washington-knows-best liberals who have so little faith in the ability of grown-ups to manage their own affairs that they are scandalized by the very idea that the average American ought to take advantage of the market prosperity, too. While the liberal elites get rich and talk about their 401(k) plans at cocktail parties, they would deny the same opportunity to ordinary Americans who have to rely on a retirement system that has gone bankrupt. What arrogance.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I'm surprised that a President who stresses the importance of strengthening our educational systems has actually proposed through his FY 1999 budget to level fund the only underfunded federal mandate in education--The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). In fact, considering that the number of children with disabilities is projected to increase by 123,000 from 1999 to 2000, the President's budget request actually cuts funding for children with disabilities from $702 per child in FY 1999 to $688 per child in FY 2000. Under IDEA, the federal government is to provide funding aid at 40% of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the excess costs of education students with disabilities. However, the appropriations for IDEA have not come close to reaching the 40% level. Federal funding has never risen above 12% of the cost of educating these children. Before the 104th Congress when Democrats controlled the House, the federal government was only paying about 7% of the average per pupil expenditure. We are now paying 12% of these costs. That means that since Republicans took control of Congress, IDEA appropriations have risen by 85%! Now, we are not up to the 40% promised; however, we are fighting to further increase federal funds for this very important program while the President requests no funding increases. In his FY 1999 budget, the President does propose creating new federal programs in education. It is my feeling that before we create new programs we must ensure that the federal government lives up to its promises made to students, parents, and schools by increasing funding for a program already on the books that is terribly underfunded. When the federal government begins to pay its fair share of IDEA costs, local funds will be freed up, enabling local schools to hire and train high quality teachers, reduce class size, build and renovate classrooms, and invest in technology. In my district, the Catawba County schools, for example, receive $712,800 from the federal government for IDEA. If the federal government paid its promised share, this school district would receive $3,652,387, an increase of $2,939,600. This year the state of North Carolina receives $58,238,500 for IDEA. If fully funded, my state would receive $298,416,600, a difference of $240,178,100. It is imperative that we increase funding for this program. I'm disappointed that the President has not joined with us in this endeavor, however, I hope that he will begin to see that increased funding will not only help IDEA students, but all students who see school resources diminishing daily and the quality of their education being reduced. Let's all work together to fully fund IDEA so that out children are not shortchanged a quality education.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to join my colleagues to pay tribute to Wilmer ``Vinegar Bend'' Mizell, our former colleague who passed away last weekend. Whether you knew him personally from politics or from professional baseball or whether you knew him only by reputation, Vinegar Bend Mizell was a tremendous talent and a good and decent man. I think of all the persons I have come to know in my 30 plus years of public service, no one kinder or more genuine than Vinegar Bend Mizell comes to mind. Wilmer Mizell was not a native North Carolinian but born in Mississippi where he grew up playing baseball. In fact, he got the nickname ``Vinegar Bend'' from the small town of Vinegar Bend, Alabama where he spent much of his early ball-playing days. He joined the St. Louis Cardinals farm system after graduating from high school, playing baseball in Albany, Georgia and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a city he would later represent in the Congress. While in the farm system he won most popular honors and the reputation as the ``strikeout king.'' In May of 1952, he joined the St. Louis Cardinals and pitched in the 1959 National League All Star team. The following year he was traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates, where he completed the season with a 13-5 record and helped the Pirates win the National League pennant. Vinegar Bend finished his career with the New York Mets expansion team in 1962. During his career he struck out 918 batters. In an interview years later about his baseball career, Wilmer simply summed up his success by saying, ``It seems every time I went out, I was pitching good baseball.'' After retiring from baseball, Wilmer began a successful career in politics, first as a Davidson County Commissioner and then as a Member of Congress, representing the 5th Congressional district. As a member of this body, Vinegar Bend Mizell was an advocate for the ``average guy'' in his district, deriding the Democratic majority for being big spenders and taking too much in taxes out of the pockets of the working men and women of America. Congressman Mizell lost his seat in the 1974 elections during the aftermath of the Watergate scandals, when so many Republicans paid for the mistakes of President Nixon with their congressional seats. But even in defeat, Vinegar Bend was magnanimous, saying ``Whether you voted for me or not, [you've] still got a friend in Vinegar Bend.'' He went on to serve in the Ford, Reagan and Bush Administrations and served with distinction. With Vinegar Bend's untimely death, we all have lost a friend. I mourn his passing and express my sincere condolences to his wife, Ruth, and his sons. Vinegar Bend will be missed, but not forgotten.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, at our gathering we had down in Virginia this past week, I got a great and very interesting fact delivered to me. Most people do not know how much the tax cuts that have been passed by the Republicans in the last several years have helped the poor. Now this is true: A normal family of four will not pay any Federal income tax until they earn over $40,000 a year. That means a large percentage of our population pay no income tax at all. So therefore when the gentlemen on the other side say over and over again that we are going to cut taxes for the rich and attack the poor, that is not true. If you cut taxes, only people who pay will pay less. Cutting taxes does not take money from the poor to give to the rich.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as American taxpayers keep a steady eye on April 15, only 65 days away, many will notice that the $500 per child tax credit passed by the Republican Congress in 1997 will make things a little easier this year. For those with children, the pain of April 15 will be mitigated somewhat because the Republican Congress passed legislation allowing middle class families with children to keep a little bit more of what they earned. Let us remember a key point that seems to be overlooked by those on the other side of the aisle: Washington did not ``give'' anything to millions of middle class families with children; Uncle Sam is merely allowing them to keep a little bit more of what already belongs to them. This legislation was passed because Republicans think the tax burden on the middle class is too high. Revenues to Uncle Sam are at record levels. Taxes paid in Washington have risen steadily higher since the days of Ronald Reagan ended. The idea that the Federal Government, of all things, can be trusted better to spend our money than the people that earned it, is simply mind-boggling.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, it did not take long to find out what the major difference between Democrats and Republicans will be in this Congress: Tax cuts. Republicans propose a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut, which the legislation of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) will do; and the Democrats, well, you guessed it, general tax relief is nowhere to be found. In fact, the President's budget will contain no middle class tax relief for another 15 years. And we all know what targeted tax cuts are. That is a euphemism for ``you won't be getting one.'' The current budget surplus, taxpayer overpayment, to be more accurate, should go back to the people that it belongs to in the first place, the taxpayers. April 15 is not far away, and the tax man cometh. The tax man has been taking too much for too long, and then wasting too much of that for too long. It is time to give the middle class average taxpayers a break. It is time for a tax cut.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am not alone today in wishing I was somewhere else, engaged in other pursuits. I take no pleasure in coming to the well today to outline my conclusions relating to the grave matter before us--the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Specifically, the House Judiciary Committee has recommended to the House four articles of impeachment: two counts of perjury; one count of obstruction of justice; and one count of abuse of power. After careful review of the Report of the Judiciary Committee on this matter, I have concluded that impeachment is warranted on all counts. Today or tomorrow, whenever the votes are taken, I will vote ``yes'' on all four counts. Article I--On August 17, 1998, the President swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. It is absolutely clear to me that contrary to that oath, President Clinton willfully gave perjurious, false and misleading testimony to that grand jury about the nature and details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Article II--On December 23, 1997, the President submitted sworn answers to written questions asked as part of the Jones lawsuit against him. It is absolutely clear to me that contrary to this oath, President Clinton willfully gave perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to these questions concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees. Article III--The evidence also is absolutely clear that President Clinton, using the powers of his office, engaged in personally and through his staff and agents, in a course of action designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the evidence and testimony related to the Jones lawsuit and the investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. The evidence shows President Clinton encouraged a sworn affidavit to be executed that he knew to be false, misleading and perjurious; encouraged a witness to give false, misleading and perjurious testimony in the Jones lawsuit; engaged in and supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in the Jones lawsuit; engaged in an effort to secure job assistance for Ms. Lewinsky, a witness against him in the Jones lawsuit to prevent truthful testimony of that witness; and, related a false and misleading account of events in the Jones lawsuit to a potential witness against him, his secretary, Betty Currie, in an attempt to influence her to give false testimony. Article IV--The evidence clearly shows the President abused his power by refusing to and failing to respond to written requests by the House Judiciary Committee and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain of these written requests. What this matter comes down to is really several simple questions. Did the President of the United States lie under oath? Did he use his office and the power of his office to obstruct justice? And, did he abuse the power of his office? The evidence, in my opinion, is compelling. That is why I must vote for all four Articles of Impeachment. We are a nation of laws, not of men. The law is for the most powerful and privileged in our society, as well as for the economically and socially disadvantaged. The President cannot be judged on a different standard than anyone else simply because he is the President. In fact, because he is the President, he is the chief law enforcement officer of this Nation, and is duty bound to uphold the law. Telling the truth under oath, the bedrock of our judicial system, is the very least we should be able to expect from our President. I want to thank all of the thousands of residents of the 10th district of North Carolina for taking the time to contact my office over the past few months. I know these votes I cast today will please some and disappoint others. All I can say is I came to these conclusions after careful study and review of the facts. I tried to stay open-minded and weigh the evidence carefully. I also refrained from making statements in the press and doing interviews on the matter, believing it better to wait to make a decision until the investigation was complete and the Judiciary Committee had made its determination. I do not make the decision lightly or for political reasons. Nor, do I make the decision based on the polls. The decision to support all four articles of impeachment is based on the facts. Sadly, the facts of this case warrant a ``yes'' vote to impeach.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, over the past three years, Republicans in Congress have worked to reform the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). For too long OSHA has been marked by burdensome and over-reaching regulations and unfair enforcement. It has employers as foes rather than as partners in improving worker safety and health. Not only has OSHA's approach made it one of the most disliked agencies in the whole federal government, but also study after study has shown that OSHA's approach has been generally ineffective in improving safety and health in the workplace. I am pleased to report that we have been able to make some progress in reforming OSHA, though much more needs to be done. Three bills amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act were signed into law during the 105th Congress. What makes this more remarkable is that in the 28 years since OSHA came into existence, there has been only one other change made to the law, and that was the penalty increase enacted as part of a tax and revenue increase bill by the Democrat Congress in 1990. The first change we made requires OSHA to provide consultative services to small businesses. A small business that requests a consultation and then corrects the violations would not receive any citations or fines, and would not be inspected for at least one year, unless there was a serious accident or a complaint was made to OSHA. These consultations would be provided through state agencies, not by OSHA directly. My own company has participated in the consultation program run by North Carolina OSHA, and I am pleased that we were able to authorize consultation services as the first ``program'' amendment to OSHA. With increased funding and availability, this consultation program--in which the government works with employers and their employees to improve safety and health in the workplace--can be an excellent model for further changes in OSHA. The second change we enacted this year addresses a fundamental problem with OSHA enforcement. During most of the years of OSHA, under Democrat Congresses, OSHA was measured in terms of enforcement: how many citations were issued? How many and how large were the penalties against employers? Individual inspectors and their supervisors were evaluated by the same criteria; raises and promotions were based on how many citations and penalties they issued. So it is no surprise that inspectors focused more on finding nitpicky and paperwork violations to cite than the overall safety and health conditions of the workplace. The change enacted into law this year prohibits that practice. OSHA may not use enforcement measures, such as penalties and citations, to evaluate the performance of their compliance officers or their supervisors. The goal of OSHA should be safe and healthy jobs, not achieving a certain level of citations and fines. The third change enacted this year was a bill sponsored by Senator Enzi to apply to OSH Act, including enforcement and penalties, to the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Service has, in terms of the OSH Act, been considered a federal agency, even though it is now largely independent and directly competes with private companies. Furthermore, worker health and safety has been a continuing concern at the Postal Service. Putting the Postal Service under OSHA enforcement helps to ``level the playing field'' as it competes with private companies. In addition to these three amendments to the OSH Act, I am pleased that the omnibus appropriations bill authorizes and funds a comprehensive and independent study of ergonomics, to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In past years, Congress has explicitly prohibited OSHA from promulgating an ergonomics standard. This year's appropriation bill does not include such a prohibition. However, OSHA is required by its statute to base an ergonomics standard on ``the best available evidence,'' and the purpose of the NAS study is to assess and report on what the best evidence is with regard to the nature, causes, and prevention of so-called ergonomics injuries. It would therefore, in my view, be inconsistent with the statute for OSHA to promulgate an ergonomics standard before the NAS study is completed. We also made progress on several other items, but we were unable to enact those changes into law this year. I am disappointed that we were unable to enact legislation to help small businesses handle the paperwork burden imposed by OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard. This was bipartisan legislation in both the House and the Senate. It simply made clear that employers could comply with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard's requirement for Material Safety Data Sheets on hazardous substances through the use of electronic means, rather than paper copies. It also provided that certain basic information on the substance be attached and written in terms understandable to non- chemistry majors. The bill passed the House on voice vote, but opposition to the bill from the Department of Labor prevented this bill from being considered in the Senate in the final days of the session. This is most unfortunate, as it would have benefited both small business and workers. I am also disappointed that we were unable to make more progress in reforming OSHA's standards-setting process. Charles Jeffress, the current Assistant Secretary for OSHA, has complained that OSHA's standards-setting process is broken and needs to be fixed. He is not the first Assistant Secretary to acknowledge that, and I agree that there are serious problems with the current standards-setting process. The Committee on Education and the Workforce attempted to address that problem this year with two bills that would have required OSHA to use outside, independent experts to ``peer review'' the technical scientific and economic data used as the basis for standards, and to write standards that are specific to identified industries and operations. Together these reforms would make OSHA's standards more credible and more efficient in protecting health and safety without imposing undue costs. Ironically, Mr. Jeffress' own Department of Labor opposed both of these common sense reforms. Rep. Wicker also worked very hard to include a provision in the appropriations bill, similar to the bill that passed our Committee, that would have required OSHA to conduct peer review of the technical scientific and economic data and assumptions used as the basis for standards. As my colleagues know, credible scientific enterprise includes peer review. Study after study and report after report--all have urged federal agencies, including OSHA, to use peer review. The blame for the state of OSHA's standards- setting process falls squarely on the Department of Labor, which has consistently opposed even the mildest and most common sense reforms in that process. There are other issues that still need to be addressed as well. OSHA does little to encourage voluntary workplace efforts by employers and employees to improve safety and health, and some of OSHA's policies actually discourage those efforts. During this Congress, I proposed changes that would have limited OSHA's access of an employer's own safety and health audits and assessments. OSHA's use of those for enforcement discourages companies' voluntary, thorough, and honest evaluations. I also proposed that we improve the legal protections for employees who raise health and safety concerns, to ensure that they have a fair and adequate means of redress if they are discriminated against for raising these concerns. Unfortunately the Clinton Administration was unwilling to go along with these changes to improve the legal protections for employers and employees who make efforts to improve safety and health in the workplace. Opposition from the Clinton Administration also continues to stalemate efforts to allow greater employer-employee cooperation on safety and health and other issues in their workplaces. My colleague, and Chairman of the Small Business Committee, Representative Jim Talent, together with Senator Mike Enzi, have proposed a forward-looking plan to allow companies to self-certify OSHA compliance, encouraging the pro-active use of private experts instead of waiting for a relatively rare OSHA inspection. All of these are issues and proposals which we should continue to work on next Congress. In response to our efforts, OSHA has also made administrative changes which have helped to focus more of its resources on serious health and safety concerns. I applaud those changes. Other changes, however, such as the misnamed ``cooperative compliance program,'' have shown how difficult it is to change OSHA's traditional ``command and control'' approach. The slow pace and inconsistent direction of OSHA's own ``reinvention'' changes points to the needs for continued legislative reform as well as continued oversight to ensure that OSHA effectively promotes the goal of safe and healthful jobs for our nation's workers.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, for 40 years Washington was on autopilot and heading in one direction and one direction only, toward higher taxes and bigger government. Republicans were elected to a majority in 1994 and things have been different ever since, despite the efforts of the President to raise taxes, to create new government programs and to expand old ones. Republicans passed middle-class tax cuts, welfare reform, IRS reform, and Medicare reform. Let us just consider for a moment if any of these achievements, even a single one, would have seen the light of day if the liberal Democrats had still been in the majority. Welfare reform? The liberals are still bitter about that. Tax cuts? They tried to raise taxes, not cut them. IRS reform? Now, why would a liberal ever want to take on his best friend? Medicare reform? This is perhaps the most unlikely proposition of them all. Any effort to reform Medicare was greeted with hysterical cries of extremism by liberal defenders of the status quo in this very body. No, Mr. Speaker, not a single one of these achievements could have been possible were it not for a Republican majority in Congress.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the President, as the gentleman said, wants 100,000 new teachers. I am opposed to giving the Federal Government any more power over local schools. But I am willing to compromise. So I would like to say something that might surprise my Democrat colleagues. I am willing to accept the President's proposal to hire 100,000 new teachers but the President must then agree to test them for competence and he must also agree to discharge them for incompetence. Uh-oh, I am just guessing, but suddenly the President may not be so enthusiastic about his idea for 100,000 new teachers. The special interests who currently protect incompetent teachers at all costs would go ballistic and find a way to block the proposal. Suddenly the talk about education and the children would end because a proposal with more Federal dollars that demanded accountability for those dollars would be automatically unacceptable. So how many on the other side would be willing to take up my proposal?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, it seems that our President has his priorities a little bit confused. What are we to make of the fact that we have a part-time President, but a full-time fund-raiser? The Fund-raiser in Chief just completed his 100th fund-raiser this year, this one in New York City. One hundred fund-raisers, but only two Cabinet meetings. Just in case anyone heard that wrong, I will say it again. One hundred fund-raisers, but only two Cabinet meetings. Ironically, the business conducted at the Cabinet meetings were both related, one to say ``I did not'' and the other one to say ``I did.'' That is what I call a commitment to, as he says, ``Doing the job the American people sent me here to do.'' Of course, in between those two Cabinet meetings we had India and Pakistan test nuclear devices; we had a total failure to develop a National Missile Defense system, even though the U.S. Navy already has technology on Aegis cruisers; and, we heard that Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the U.N. and U.S. weapons inspectors time and time again. Mr. Speaker, we do not need a part-time President or a full-time fund-raiser. We need some attention to the Nation's business.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, let us compare and contrast what the Democrats want to do with money for education and what Republicans propose to do with the money. Republicans want the money to go to the classroom. They want their local schools and parents to have more control over those dollars that are spent. Democrats want more Federal control over the money. They want more money to go to the Department of Education, the bureaucracy. The ironic thing is that you will never find a Democrat who will admit more Federal money means more Federal control, more bureaucracy and less power in the hands of the local schools. No, you will never find a Democrat to admit that, but just ask yourself this question, when was the last time Washington intervened and did not ask for more control? When was the last time the experts in Washington, D.C., did not try to tell, have more say in how those Washington dollars were spent? It all comes down to power and control, more in the hands of parents and local schools or in the hands of the Federal bureaucrats in Washington.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody has heard that great and wonderful quotation about ``We are from the Federal Government and we are here to help you.'' I don't know how many are old enough to remember the good old days before the Federal Government got into funding the education program that we all have throughout our country. I think, unless I am mistaken, since they got in there and we were taking test scores and things like that, the grades have gone down. The Federal Government's assistance has been fabulous. They come up and say, we are going to give you 6 percent of all your funding. That is what they have done so far. Six percent is all the Federal Government gives us in funding education at the local level, but they give us 100 percent of the rules and regulations by which we have to operate. I know at this particular time, back in the 1960s, I kept trying to tell people, do not accept Federal money because it will come with strings, and you will not have the slightest idea what they are going to tell you to do the next day. But they did. It was not too long ago, I think about 6 or 8 months ago, or maybe when we first came in and got control of Congress, we decided that somebody, somewhere, ought to come up with the idea of preventing unfunded mandates. Let me give Members an idea of unfunded mandates. Unfunded mandates are what the Federal Government says you have to do if you accept their money. So here we are, accepting 6 percent of the money from the Federal Government, and they come up with new ideas. One of the ones they came up with, and I am not saying that this particular idea was terribly wrong, it is called IDEA. It is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Basically, what it was is children with disabilities were not getting a proper education, so the Federal Government, being thoughtful and thinking of what was right and what was wrong, decided we are going to mandate to you folks back home in your school system, we are going to mandate that you take this special education pot and take care of these children. So they did. They mandated that we do it, and guaranteed, let me just tell the Members, they guaranteed that they would fund up to 40 percent of this total amount of money that was going to be given to run this special education program. So far, and I have been here in Congress 12 years now, under the Democrats they never raised anything. They got up to 7 percent and that is where they stopped. They never got any higher. They were supposed to come up with 40, and promised us in blood, we will give you 40 percent of the costs, but they never did. They never got up over 7 percent. Really, we took control 4 years ago, and we have increased it to 11 percent. But stop and talk about a mandate, this program is underfunded by $10 billion. The President has come along with a great and wonderful idea, 100,000 new teachers. Can Members imagine how they are going to fund these teachers? Why in the world, if they are coming up with all these brilliant ideas, do we not fund programs that we have already brought up? The fact of unfunded mandates is one of the major things. I was a county commissioner for 8 years. We spent time after time trying to figure out, if we took the Federal money, what were the strings they were going to put on it and make us do? If we wanted money for a sewer but we had to apply for water, we could not use it for whatever is necessary. At one time under President Nixon, they decided to open it up and let them take Federal money and do with it what they thought they really needed, but that is not the way it operates still. We passed that program several years ago, just a couple years ago, about unfunded mandates. Let me say, they are coming along now and telling us how much they are going to help us with construction of schools. The Federal Government is going to step into this and help get school construction started. I do not know if Members have ever heard of a thing called the Davis- Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act says if there is a dollar's worth of Federal money in any construction, they must pay what is a little higher than union wages. In an area like mine in the South, and we are a right-to-work State, if we accepted a dollar's worth of Federal money to construct schools in our State, it would cost us 30 percent more. In other words, if we wanted to build a $1 million school and we accepted the Federal money, because of the additional labor costs, it would cost us $1,300,000, a complete loss of $300,000 worth of local money because we accepted something from the Federal Government. All of these great and wonderful things about the 100,000 teachers, and helping us with schools, all of this is going to cost money from somewhere, yet the Democrats and the President have promised, they have guaranteed the elderly, and I happen to be one that collects Social Security, they guaranteed us that they are going to protect Social Security come hell or high water. They are going to take care and make sure that it is untouched. Yet, just in the education programs alone, they have to be spending billions and billions of dollars that we do not have. So where do they get the money? The money obviously has to come from the surplus. There is, everybody knows, no surplus. It belongs to Social Security, so anything we do is basically Social Security money being used by the Democrats to fund their favorite dream.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would beg all the Members to roll up their pants. It looks like it is getting heavy around here. The party of bigger government and higher taxes disagrees with the party of less government and lower taxes. The party of bigger government and higher taxes is threatening to shut down the government if the party of less government and lower taxes stands firm against creating more big government, more Federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., more spending on Federal programs. Well, I got some news for the President and the party of bigger government and higher taxes. My constituents did not send me here to do exactly the opposite of what I have promised I would do. They sent me here to reduce the size of government, not expand it. They sent me here to cut the size of Federal bureaucracy, not make it bigger. They sent me here to give local schools more say over how they run their affairs, not less. They sent me here to make sure that the government lives within its means, not find new ways for government to get around its budget agreements. Regardless of the excuse the Democrat agenda is always the same, more spending and more government.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, already rumors are running wild in Washington that the President wants a government shutdown, a shutdown that he can then blame on the Republicans. This is considered a terrible breach of faith among Republicans because Republican leaders in Congress have been working since the spring to avoid a government shutdown. There is no need for a shutdown, for even if an agreement cannot be reached before the current spending bills run out, Republicans are ready to sign on to another temporary spending bill to allow the government to continue without interruption while we work out the remaining differences. Republicans have been bending over backwards to avoid what we know some here in the administration are recommending. The disruption, the heartache, the uncertainty that government shutdown has introduced into peoples' lives are not necessary, and the Republicans have no desire to provoke a confrontation with the President. Let us continue to work together to pass the remaining spending bills and avoid a government shutdown.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 581, a resolution to open an inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee to determine whether substantial evidence exists to recommend the impeachment of the President of the United States. When taking his oath of office, President Clinton vowed to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report outlines eleven potentially impeachable offenses against President Clinton suggesting he did not honor his oath. An investigation into these allegations is necessary to determine if there is substantial evidence to prove that President Clinton did, in fact, commit these crimes and to determine if these offenses warrant impeachment. Contrary to some opinions, this impeachment inquiry is not an attempt to disgrace the President but an honest effort to discover the truth. I endorse this impeachment inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. Like all Americans, I hope it can proceed fairly and conclude expeditiously. Just as Clinton took an oath of office when being sworn in as President of the United States, I also took an oath of office as a Member of Congress to uphold the laws of the land. For that reason, I support H. Res. 581--a vote for truth and justice. Mr. PASCRELL, of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I cast my vote for the proposal offered by Representative Rick Boucher for an impeachment inquiry. I firmly believe that this is the best course of action for our country. The Hyde proposal, in an effort to advance a political agenda, would allow this inquiry to go on indefinitely. But the American people deserve to have closure on this matter as soon as possible. Alexander Hamilton, over 200 years ago, warned our great nation of the divisive nature of unfair inquiries. Our proposal would allow us to uphold our Constitutional responsibilities, namely to determine whether these charges made against the President are true and if true, they mandate the President's impeachment. We have a duty to our constituents to get back to work on the many issues that affect our nation's families. That is why I, and everyone in this room, was sent here in the first place. The deadline our proposal imposes would grant ample time to review the Starr Report, make these difficult decisions, and re-focus our energies on other vital matters. My fear of the Hyde proposal is based solely on its open ended nature and the financial toll another lengthy investigation will place upon us. Make no mistake, I think the President's admitted behavior is indefensible and that this matter has done great harm to our country and the office of the President. But, we need to move on and bring closure to this issue. I will not allow the House Leadership to bring down the institution in which I so proudly serve. And I will do my best to insure that the decisions made best serve our Constitution and our nation. No individual and no party is privy to virtue.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, let me give a few quotes from our President. October 1992, and I quote: I think trust and trustworthiness is an issue in this campaign, and I think I have demonstrated it in my life. In December of 1992 concerning the Iran-Contra pardons the President- elect said: I am concerned about any action which sends a signal that if you work for the government you're above the law or not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath. October 1995: The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of truth. And June of 1996: The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role of this problem, older men who prey on under age women. There are consequences to decisions. One way or another people always wind up being held accountable.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for allowing me to speak at this time. And as an individual who has served with Harris, I guess I am 2 years short of his same tenure, and we have been on this committee together for 12 years, as far as I am concerned there was always one person I could count on. He had one labor subcommittee, and I had the other labor subcommittee, and when things got rough and the Democrats, since we have been in control, had nothing else to do, so the whole right-hand side was just full of people. But on our side, Harris and I were alone. He was either in front, and I was standing there to second whatever he did. We had the votes, but we just did not have the people, so we had to work together on this thing. I still remember, because I had joined his organization. He and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) invented this idea of the Pork Busters. And talk about an individual who does not mind getting bruised and beat up. Anybody in those days when the Democrats had absolute control of this body here and somebody standing up trying to cut the budget, it did not make any difference how difficult it was, there was no way that we as Pork Busters were going to accomplish our purpose. And most of us had enough sense not to stand up and get beat up the way some of us did, and Harris was one. He must have enjoyed getting beat up, because in reality he would get up and fight and lose. The next day he would get up and fight and lose. I just have nothing but absolute admiration for somebody that will stand up alone and try to reduce the budget that way. I think the one thing that almost everybody has to admit, and anybody in this whole organization, is a thing called ERISA. It is a type of operation that protects large corporations that have plants all over the United States, different areas, and it keeps people, they have the same law, they have a Federal law that says if a company has a plant in New Jersey and a plant in Massachusetts and a plant in California, they all have the same law, Federal law, to affect their retirement and to affect their insurance and so forth. And nobody in this body understands that any better than Harris Fawell. In fact, most of us that listen to this discussion that Harris will sometimes have with his professionals do not even understand what he is talking about. If my colleagues have ever thought of a lawyer speaking insurance, those are two completely different languages, but he can do them both at the same time and fool us all as to what it really means. Our chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), mentioned a whole bunch of bills that had been passed through this committee, and most all of the ones that were mentioned were education bills. And I commend the gentleman, because our chairman is a past educator. But Harris and I have been on the labor end of this thing. And you cannot get them all passed, but some of the names that he has come up with are just beautiful. Any artist would have said this bill should have passed. The first one I am looking at, ``Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act.'' Now, who in the world could possibly be against a bill like that? Well, the Democrats were. There is another one, ``The Sales Incentive Compensation Act.'' Now, there is nobody that would recognize the free enterprise system existing in any better fashion than that particular method. ``The Faculty Retirement Incentive Act.'' Harris was always full of incentives one way or another. And I think the greatest one of all is the ``Paycheck Protection Act.'' Now that one I would have gone down forever and ever if we could have ever passed that. Most of these bills we actually got out of the House, but somehow there is a body on the other side of the building over here that has to have 60 votes to cut off a filibuster. And once they do not have that 60 votes, a lot of Harris's bills and my bills just never appear again. But with beautiful names like the ``Working Family's Flexibility Act,'' who could ever vote against something like that? That is a fabulous idea. And the ``Team Act.'' Anybody that recognizes the way this country operates must know that the ``Team Act'' is one of the most important things that we could have passed, but we did not. And I would like to add one more thing about Harris as the chairman of our little subcommittee where I sat with him. For those people that do not know the way we operate up here, there is a little machine in front of the speaker. It has a red light, a green light, and a yellow light, and speakers are limited to 5 minutes. When the green light is on, your five minutes are working. The yellow light comes on, and you are just about to get turned off. And the red light comes on, and you are through, supposedly. But Chairman Fawell always was kind enough to say that I think I have overused my minute or so, maybe even 10 minutes or so, but he was always willing to give the Democrats the same benefit. I thought it was unbelievably kind of him, especially one day when I first got on the committee and did not realize the way Harris operated. He was sitting right next to me, and he made the motion that he would be allowed to talk on the bill, and he talked, and his 5 minutes was up, and I was going to come next. Harris said, ``Cass, will you let me have a minute of your time?'' And being a very naive little freshman I said, ``Sure, go ahead.'' And so Harris got the word, and he used up every minute of my 5 minutes. I have never been so deeply hurt. But anyhow, he is a wonderful guy. He is the most dependable, honest, sincere individual I have ever known, and I cannot say anything good enough for him, and I hate like the dickens to see him leave. Like I told him always before when I had my hearing in my subcommittee, he was there, and we could take care of each other. We would do the same thing for each other. And now that he has run off and left me, I think my choice of words earlier was ``I am dead meat now.'' When the time comes around and the Democrats want to get me, I will not have that white- haired gentleman there taking care of me.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, guess who made the following quotes. In 1974: ``If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign.'' Again in 1974: ``I think it's plain that the President should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding. I think the country would be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he'd resign.'' Again in 1974: ``I think the definition of impeachment should include any criminal act plus willful failure of the President to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. And another factor that I think constitutes an impeachable offense would be willful, reckless behavior in office.'' In 1992: ``I think trust and trustworthiness is an issue in this campaign, and I think I've demonstrated it in my life.'' Again in 1992: ``I'm concerned by any action which sends a signal that if you work for the government, you're above the law, or not telling the truth to Congress, under oath, is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body, under oath.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I often have discussions, serious discussions, with Democrats who have a point of view that I do not agree with. It is always a healthy thing to have an honest debate with another person, for there are usually two sides to every story and every issue. But it is also frustrating to debate someone who is not using honest arguments. The other side has charged repeatedly that the tax cut package promoted by the Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), is a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. If my colleagues believe that, look at this chart. The absurdity of the allegation becomes quite obvious. If the raid is so, then how can $9.6 trillion in spending over 5 years not be a threat to Social Security, while this little $80 billion right here in tax cuts are not a threat? Then, to add insult to injury, the Democrats did not put one dime aside for Social Security during the 40 years they were in control. And now Republicans are putting aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security and we get blamed for attacking Social Security. Mr. Speaker, this is what liberalism has become.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, what do liberals, in the bottom of their hearts, think about tax cuts? Well, you do not have to speculate any more because the liberals these days, from the President on down, are saying out loud exactly what they think about tax cuts. They call tax cuts an election year gimmick. Last year the President called the people in Virginia who supported a tax cut selfish, selfish for daring to suggest that people should be able to keep more of their own money. The truth is, liberals really do believe that tax cuts are nothing more than an election year gimmick. It is simply inconceivable to the liberal mind-set that the Republicans believe as a matter of principle that the government takes too much of your money and then wastes too much of what it takes. Allowing the people to keep more of what already belongs to them is a gimmick to liberals. To Republicans, it is a fundamental freedom issue. To people who work very hard to build a life for themselves and their family, to pursue the American dream, this must be a surprising bit of news indeed.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this H.R. 3736 so we can ensure a continued supply of highly skilled workers for American companies. To those of us who are in business, particularly in manufacturing, some of the rhetoric we have heard in connection with this bill just does not make any sense. Whether we like it or not, we are in a world economy. Our competition is just as likely to come from Asia, Europe or Latin America as it is from the town next door. We can only compete if we constantly are adapting to new technologies and new demands, and to do that we have to find employees who have skills that we need. It is not a question of American versus foreign workers. It is a matter of keeping up and, hopefully, ahead of the constant competition. And if we fail at that, there will not be any jobs. So the question is, in this world economy, how do we best promote the interest of our economy and the American workers? And it seems to me this bill is entirely consistent with doing what is best for our economy and our workers. Some people argue this bill will hurt American workers. The principal protection for American workers that has been in H-1B programs before, and continues to be a part of the program under this bill, is that an H-1B worker must be paid at least as much as other employees with similar qualifications and experience. There have been some abuses in the H-1B program, as there have been in many other government programs, and the problems have been particularly in the area of paying the required wage. This bill that we are considering today provides additional enforcement and includes tighter restrictions on H-1B dependent employers. I would also note that H.R. 3736 has an important provision to generate additional funds for training and education of American workers in technology fields where there is such a demand for workers right now. Hopefully, as some of the reforms of JTPA that we have recently passed go into effect, these funds will be used to improve retraining programs for Americans so that Americans can fill the technical jobs that are increasingly the jobs available in this economy. Let me just say that we all have seen polls that have been sent around to our offices asking Americans whether they support allowing 190,000 additional foreign technical workers to come into the United States. To be more accurate, they should instead ask this question: ``Would you prefer these 190,000 technical jobs be filled in the United States or transferred to other countries?'' Then I think the answer would be much different. That is the challenge of the world economy in which we are operating. I think H.R. 3736 provides the right answer to that question. And, again, I appreciate the work of the Members of the House and the Senate in agreeing on an agreement reached with the administration, and I urge my colleagues to support 3736.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a little less than 1 month to conduct the people's business. I think Congress should focus on the issue of tax cuts. Republicans believe that Americans are overtaxed. Democrats believe that Americans are not overtaxed, and some of them actually believe that Americans are not taxed enough. Republicans talk about tax cuts for all Americans, and Democrats speak in terms of targeted tax cuts, which is a great way of saying that the middle class, the backbone of America, will not be getting a tax cut. Now, let us make a distinction between Democrats and so-called new Democrats. Democrats will raise your taxes. New Democrats will talk about cutting your taxes, but they will end up raising them once they get into office. Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. If you believe taxes are fundamentally a freedom issue, then Republicans are on your side. If you think the government knows best, then the Democrats are your friend. It is a clear choice.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall votes 435, 436, and 437 on September 15, I would have voted ``yea.'' I applaud the leadership for bringing these important bills to the floor for a vote.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just speak to the gentleman from New Jersey and remind him that we have authorized money in our budget the last two years to do this very thing, and the Administration has yet to spend them. We should all be aware that our Nation's drug problem is a poison eating away at our country. It is invading our streets and our schools. Statistics show an ever increasing number of drug users within our Nation. Here is a startling fact. Heroin use alone has reached historic levels among 12 to 17-year-olds. Unfortunately these drugs are coming from our neighbors to the south. Now more than ever we need to focus more effort on source country eradication and interdiction to prevent drugs from entering the United States. To my dissatisfaction, the Clinton administration has resisted congressional attempts, as I said, to assist these source countries as they wage their war on drugs. In general, President Clinton has made our Nation's drug problem a very low priority. As I said, the money was in the budget but they refused to spend it. The good news is that we have drafted an effective drug elimination plan. H.R. 4300 would provide the necessary assistance to countries like Colombia, Peru and Bolivia to strengthen eradication and interdiction strategies and enhance alternative crop developments. As a member of the Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and the Speaker's drug task force, I have witnessed firsthand the ill-equipped police and military forces as they attempt to fight the war on drugs alone. Specifically I have traveled to Colombia on numerous occasions only to be saddened by their lack of support from the Nation that creates the highest demand for illegal drugs, the United States. I am most pleased that a provision in H.R. 4300 would produce 50 ``Super Huey'' helicopters for the Colombian National Police. These are rebuilt and cost roughly 10 percent of what a new one would. It is money well spent. It is that helicopter package that is essential to the Colombians' ability to fight the increasingly well-funded, well-armed narcoguerillas and to eradicate an increasing number of coca and poppy plants. Let us support a plan that embodies our role in the war on drugs and at the same time will assist in freeing us from the constricting hold drugs have on our Nation. I ask for support for H.R. 4300.