Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the President met with his Cabinet yesterday to discuss the logistics of shutting down the Government. I have a suggestion for the President--instead of meeting with your Cabinet, maybe you could make some time to meet with congressional leaders to discuss balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, as a candidate, Bill Clinton promised to balance the budget. While President, he has stated that he supports a plan that balances the budget in 5, 7, 9, even 10 years. But yet he has shown no leadership, has presented no plan, and has given us no choice. The Republican majority has a plan to balance the budget in 7 years. It is time for the Clinton Democrats to stop the excuses and balance the budget. It is the right thing to do for our children's future.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the President gives new meaning to the term AWOL--absent without leadership. We are in the process of doing something that the Democrat majority could never accomplish--balancing the Federal budget. Republicans are keeping their promise to move forward with a certified and honest balanced budget. What has the Clinton administration done? Everything and nothing at the same time. The President has said he can support a plan that balances the budget in 5, 7, 9, or 10 years. But yet he has not produced any real plans to go along with his statements. So now the Republican majority is going to present him with a real plan to balance the budget in 7 years. We have shown true leadership by doing the right thing for our children's future. Mr. Speaker, it's time for the President to stop the gimmicks and excuses. It's time for him to keep his promises and sign a balanced budget.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, what did my constituents send me to Washington to do? They sent me here to downsize the bloated Federal bureaucracy, cut spending, and most importantly balance the budget. And why do they want the budget balanced? Because of the benefits it will bring them. A balanced budget means lower interest rates on home mortgages, car loans, and student loans. A balanced budget results in a stronger economy, which means more jobs. A balanced budget means that Government spending is under control and taxes will be cut rather than increased. Mr. Speaker, for too long Washington bureaucrats have come up with excuse after excuse for not reining in Government spending. But enough is enough. No more Washington gimmicks, and no more excuses. It is time to balance the budget. It is the right thing to do for America's future.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gunderson amendment which would drastically improve the schools in our Nation's Capitol. Early this year, after Congressman Gunderson was chosen to lead the D.C. school reform effort, he asked me if I would help. For many years, my wife and I have helped get money and equipment to help build and equip hospitals, orphanages, and fire departments all over the world. In our hometown, we helped found, fund, and build a day care center for welfare mothers, so when the gentleman from Wisconsin called on me, I was excited to have the opportunity to help. Approaching businesses for donations is something I have done all my life and so I understand the concept of lining up suppliers of construction materials. Next I approached local construction firms to see if they would assist in the effort. Their reaction was positive but they warned me that they had been involved before and that soon after the repairs had been completed, the repaired schools had been vandalized. They also advised me that the many regulations affecting construction in the District of Columbia made their efforts more difficult because of wasting money. The Davis-Bacon Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act restrictions on volunteers topped the list. Unfortunately, due to the opposition of Delegate Norton and others, the Gunderson amendment does not include these waivers, which will be a disincentive to participation by the local construction industry. Raynard Jackson, an aggressive young Republican, offered to line up volunteers and suggested getting additional volunteers from local industrial schools to help in the areas for which they were being trained such as carpentry, plumbing and electrical work. This would help provide on-the-job training for these young people and help them gain skills for the future. This effort is also in jeopardy because the waiver on volunteers was not included. Although the opposition to these waivers has made the job of repairing D.C. schools more difficult, I am still willing to help and I still support the Gunderson amendment. That is really saying something, because my colleagues know how much I oppose the Davis-Bacon Act. Without being critical, I would offer an old adage to the D.C. Delegate and other leaders; ``Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.'' Many of us care about the District of Columbia and want to help. Do not throw roadblocks in our way. Let us not let partisanship jeopardize the future of D.C.'s school children. Let us not waste this opportunity. Support the Gunderson amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, today is Halloween--the Democrat's favorite day. All this year Democrats have made a concerted effort to scare people. They have tried to scare children with school lunch horror stories. They have tried to scare seniors with their Mediscare tales from the crypt. And they have tried to scare the poor with EITC ghost stories. Democrats have lost the battle of ideas, plain and simple. The only weapon they have is distortion and fear. They have no mandate. They have no positive message of hope. And the only way they can influence policy is to scare the wits out of the American people. Madam Speaker, fear is not a hallmark of sound political leadership and scaring people is what bullies do. I challenge our friends on the other side to stop the horror stories, take off your masks, and join our effort to save Medicare, reform welfare, cut taxes on families, and balance the budget.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the latest effort to keep the Republican's promise to the American people to end business as usual in Washington. Specifically, I am referring to the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment, which would put an end to taxpayer-subsidized lobbying. Currently, over $39 billion is distributed to nearly 40,000 groups in the form of Federal grants. These funds are distributed under the guise of assisting charities. What these grants really amount to, however, is a taxpayer-funded subsidy to engage in political activity, otherwise known as welfare for lobbyists. Let me present an example of a politically active grantee and the amount that group receives. The National Council of Senior Citizens receives nearly $73 million-- 96 percent of its funds--from taxpayers. What do they do with that money? Well, let me quote from their latest progress report, issued January 1995, in which the National Council of Senior Citizens explicitly states that it ``vigorously lobbies the Congress, public officials and other organizations engaged in legislative debate.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this group, and all of the other groups who exploit their status as nonprofit organizations, to use their grants for their intended purpose to help those in need. The National Council of Senior Citizens could do much more to assist seniors if they would devote all of their time and money walking the halls of nursing homes, rather than walking the Halls of Congress.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats in this House say they cannot support a plan to balance the budget because it will hurt the poor too much. This is the most bizarre argument I've ever heard. I know it drives my liberal friends nuts, but the fact is, the best antipoverty program this country has to offer is strong economic growth. And the best way to get strong economic growth is by cutting taxes. That was the lesson of the 1980's. The tax cuts of both 1963 and 1981 created a rising tide that did indeed lift all boats. Imagine if the tax cuts of 1981 had been coupled with comparable spending restraint by the Congress. The poor might actually have been able to survive the disastrous tax increases of 1990 and 1993. Do my liberal friends really want to help the poor. Then balance the budget and cut taxes. It is a proven solution.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, this week, I joined my Republican colleagues in taking another step toward delivering a balanced budget and fulfilling yet another campaign promise. This week's action centered on the Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, which contains real world solutions toward cutting overall Federal spending, providing much needed tax relief for all Americans, and of course setting the pace for a balanced budget within 7 years. As you know, Mr. Chairman, budget reconciliation is the final part of the budget process where all spending recommendations made by the various House committees are combined into one giant budget proposal compiled by the House Budget Committee. This legislation is designed to meet the spending blueprint laid out in the budget resolution we passed in May. The budget resolution is a viable 7 year plan that will culminate with a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002. The overall spending cap for fiscal year 1996 was set at $1.59 trillion. Although this cap is the bottom line, specific cuts in Federal programs were based on the recommendations made by the individual House committees, with the final decisions being made by the House Budget Committee. Mr. Chairman, preparing a budget this size is a monumental task, certainly more complicated than almost anything I have done since coming to Washington. But, let me say that this budget is the right remedy for what ills our Nation. The budget crisis we have endured for so long is the result of out-of-control Federal spending, bloated Federal programs, and tax increases created by the Democrat leadership. These irresponsible practices have left us nearly $5 trillion in debt, or more than $19,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. But, since January of this year, Republican Members of the House have been bound and determined to correct the poor spending habits of the Government and get us out of debt. The unmistakable message of last year's election was that it was time to reduce the size, scope, and cost of the Federal Government. We heard the message. This year's budget will produce overall savings of nearly $1 trillion over 7 years. These savings will come by eliminating hundreds of Federal programs, closing or combining several Federal agencies, and eliminating many no longer needed commissions. Under our proposal foreign aid alone will be cut by $29 billion over 7 years. The current welfare system will be reformed, producing many more savings, specifically by providing block grants to the States. However, no cuts in Social Security appear in this bill and Medicare will only be preserved, protected, and strengthened by this legislation. Mr. Chairman, balancing the budget is critical to the economic future of this Nation. But, listening to the Democrats may leave Americans concerned how this balanced budget will affect them. Let me put it this way. If a man or woman plans to purchase a house, a balanced budget will provide him or her with lower interest rates. In most cases, these interest rates will be 2.7 percent lower than today's rates. That means, taking out a 30 year mortgage of $50,000 at an annual rate of 8.23 percent, will save more than $32,000 over the life of the loan. Likewise, a loan of $100,000 will allow a borrower to save almost $65,000 over 30 years. The money saved could be better used for college, retirement, a new car or home improvements. Interest rates on car loans will see similar reductions. Under this bill American students will find it easier to get education loans and even more importantly make them easier to pay off. A balanced budget would reduce interest rates on student loans by 2 percent. A college student who now borrows $11,000 at the new 8 percent annual interest rate will save $2,200 over the life of the loan. Students can apply these savings toward another semester of school or for other future expenses. By balancing the budget and lowering the interest rates, businesses will be more likely to invest in new equipment, new factories, and office buildings. Within 10 years, the more attractive business climate will help to create 6.1 million new jobs over 10 years. People from all educational and skill levels will be given new economic opportunities, benefiting the Nation overall. Lower interest rates will also help our farmers retire the farm debt. By decreasing the farm loan interest rate by 1.5 percent, farmers will save $15 billion over 7 years, allowing a faster debt retirement. Mr. Speaker, last week President Clinton admitted that he raised taxes too much in 1993. That shouldn't be news to anyone. High taxes have left the American taxpayer with fewer dollars to buy a house, save for college, build a nest egg for retirement, or start a new business. Critics of our reconciliation bill are saying that the tax cuts contained in our bill will only benefit the wealthiest Americans. How untrue this is. Mr. Speaker, the reconciliation bill calls for tax cuts for all Americans, from all income levels, including individuals, couples, and families with children. The tax cuts we Republicans have made will not benefit one group at the expense of another. All Americans will benefit, especially the middle class. Families with children will receive a $500 per child tax credit and families who care for an elderly relative at home will also receive a tax credit, just like we promised in the Contract With America. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have claimed that this bill will hurt our senior citizens, but the truth is the Clinton tax hike of 1993 raised taxes on Social Security benefits by 70 percent for seniors making as low as $34,000 a year. Our reconciliation bill repeals this unfair tax by reducing this tax liability for seniors by an average of $662 a year by the year 2000. In addition, reductions in the capital gains tax will further benefit seniors when they begin to cash in their nest eggs during their retirement years. Tax cuts for American businesses will mean much needed upgrades in equipment and other new investments leading to unprecedented growth. Business expansion will lead to new jobs and economic opportunities and increased wages for millions of Americans. New businesses will spring up all around the country, and our now stagnating economy will once again start to move in many new and prosperous directions. I would like to add a few comments about two labor provisions: The Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act. The Davis-Bacon Act has long outlived any usefulness that it may have had, yet it remains law, adding billions to Federal construction costs and wasting precious taxpayer dollars. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that repeal would save taxpayers $2.7 billion over 5 years. For example, electricians in Chicago who are working on a Davis-Bacon project are paid about $31.32 an hour compared with electricians on a private contract who are paid an average of $18.72 an hour. Companies can't stay in business paying $12 an hour more than the market demands, and neither can government An investigative report by the Oklahoma Department of Labor uncovered fraud, abuse, fictitious employees, and ghost projects. The Oklahoma report uncovers a systematic problem with the Davis-Bacon Act which must be addressed. As a recent TV report entitled ``The Fleecing of America,'' there is ``growing concern that the system of setting wages on U.S. government construction projects is so flawed that it's fleecing taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars.'' Scandals like this only serve to erode public confidence in the Government procurement process. Much to my regret and disappointment, the reconciliation bill before us today fails to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. However, let me assure the taxpayers that it is only a matter of time before this special interest subsidy that has been fleecing them for years is removed from the books. The reconciliation bill does include repeal of the Service Contract Act. The Service Contract Act, like the Davis-Bacon Act, inflates the cost of services procured by the Federal Government. The Service Contract Act requirements add millions per year to the cost of Federal contracts for services such as computer programming, building security, travel services, or university research. Although it began modestly, today the Service Contract Act impacts a broad spectrum of businesses and employees ranging far beyond the original intent of the law. Repeal of the Service Contract Act saves over $3 billion over 5 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Speaker, It is not so difficult to see how important this legislation really is to our Nation and to future generations. I know that opponents of this bill have been telling the American public how Republicans are taking away their future, but, let me assure you, this historic piece of legislation only cuts out the fat of Government, reduces unneeded spending, and sets the pace for reaching a balanced budget. Passage of this bill only means a better Government and a brighter future for all Americans. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]. [[Page H 10665]]

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich]. (Mr. EHRLICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, this week the new majority will deliver on the tax cuts we promised during the last election. We will provide much needed relief to overburdened families. In 1948, the average American family with children paid only 3 percent of their income to the government. Today, that same family pays 24.5 percent. In fact, the average family pays more in taxes than it does on food, clothing, and housing combined. Our $500-per-child family tax credit will provide relief to more than 35 million American families. For families with two children, that's $1,000 that is now in their hands--not the government's. In addition, the $500-per-child tax credit will eliminate the tax burden for 4.7 million families. Mr. Speaker, all Americans deserve a tax cut. President Clinton believed this when he was a candidate. This week, Republicans will deliver.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act. Furthermore, I rise to thank the Members who understood the urgency of the Medicare Board of Trustees report showing that trust fund reserves will be fully depleted by 2002 and created a plan to save it. Unfortunately, President Clinton has been content to do nothing. I think the message is clear folks-- Medicare is going broke and the Republican leadership has undertaken the task of saving it. The Republican plan, the Medicare Preservation Act, will not take away Medicare but rather will protect, preserve, and strengthen it. We are not cutting Medicare, instead, we are allowing Medicare to grow at about 6 percent. Under the Republican budget, spending per beneficiary will increase from $4,800 to $6,700 over the next 7 years. You will get to keep your current doctors, and the Government won't force you into any plan that you don't want to be in. This is your right--to a choice of doctors, of plans, and to a system that's secure for current and future retirees. Each year Medicare beneficiaries will receive a form from the Government that lists available plans--traditional Medicare, managed care organizations, new groups known as provider sponsored networks that will be set up by doctors and hospitals, and medical savings accounts, where you purchase a high-deductible policy and the Government deposits money to cover that deductible in an interest- bearing account. If you do nothing, you're automatically enrolled in traditional Medicare. If you want another plan, that's up to you. Furthermore, to accumulate more savings, the GOP plan would eventually end the subsidy that goes to wealthy seniors who choose to remain in the traditional Medicare Program. Wealthy beneficiaries-- single people earning more than $75,000 a year and couples earning more than $150,000 a year--would pay the total cost of their premiums for the doctor portion of Medicare part B. Projected savings would be approximately $10 billion. Our plan also combats fraud and abuse. As Medicare is designed right now, doctors are paid for procedures whether or not the patient needs them. That means the taxpayers get ripped off, and the Medicare patient doesn't get the best care. By allowing providers, hospitals, and insurers to compete for your business, the system will root out fraud and abuse and will squeeze out the waste. Seniors who find fraud in their bills will be rewarded with a percentage of the money recovered. In addition, regulatory relief would allow hospitals serving the same geographical areas to jointly plan to provide services and facilities, which they are currently precluded from doing by antitrust laws. The intent is to prevent a duplication of expensive machines and services and to remove the costly use of an insurance company or managed care organization as an intermediary. This would help beneficiaries in rural areas where there are few managed care groups. [[Page H 10379]] I urge all Members to support the Medicare Preservation Act. With the support of the American Medical Association [AMA], the Seniors Coalition, U.S. Chambers of Commerce, the National Taxpayers Union, and millions of seniors, we are providing Medicare for future generations.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1715, a bill to clarify the relationship between workers compensation benefits and the private right of action for certain job-related injuries under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act [MSPA]. In the 1990 decision on the Adams Fruit case, the Supreme Court interpreted MSPA to provide for a private right of action for certain job-related injuries, even if the individual was covered by workers compensation at the time of the injury. H.R. 1715 would reverse the Supreme Court's ruling, which essentially permits migrant and seasonal farmworkers to seek dual remedies. Agricultural employers could be exposed to potentially enormous liability for damages, in spite of the fact that they have contributed into the workers compensation system. The purpose of workers compensation is to provide a prompt and reasonable remedy to the injured worker without delay or expense. Employers pay into workers compensation programs to avoid being exposed to additional liability. Moreover, in States where agricultural employers are not required to provide workers compensation for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the Supreme Court's decision may act as a disincentive for employers to provide coverage for those workers. I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Goodling's substitute amendment to H.R. 1715. This package of legislative changes to MSPA is fully supported by agricultural employers and farmworker organizations. Not only will this amendment permanently reverse the Adams Fruit decision, it also adds provisions to MSPA which encourage employers to provide safe transportation for farmworkers. This bipartisan agreement has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodling, as well as Mr. Clay and Mr. Owens for their success in forging a compromise on this important issue.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Davis-Bacon Act has long outlived any usefulness that it may have had. The rationale for the act has never been very persuasive, but it remains law, adding millions to Federal construction costs. Last night, NBC news highlighted the Davis-Bacon Act as part of their series entitled ``The Fleecing of America.'' NBC reported on an Oklahoma investigation that has uncovered fraud and abuse in the administration of the Federal Davis-Bacon Act. In three specific cases, the Oklahoma Department of Labor found instances where survey data on phantom projects was submitted and ghost employees were identified, presumably with the intent of inflating prevailing wage determinations. Basing the wages on inflated and perhaps fraudulent data would drive up costs of Government construction projects, wasting limited taxpayer dollars. Scandals of this nature only further erode public confidence in the Government procurement process. This type of fraud and abuse must be stopped. Join me and the 119 cosponsors of H.R. 500, in supporting repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues were able to see the NBC news story last night featuring Davis-Bacon as part of an ongoing series on ``The Fleecing of America.'' For those who missed the story, I am submitting a copy of the transcript for the Record. The report covered an investigation into the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates for Oklahoma. Survey data listing non-existent projects and ghost employees was submitted to the Department in an apparent effort to inflate the wages paid on Federal construction projects. For example, a Federal wage survey form was submitted to the Department documenting a construction project in Mustang, OK, which was never built, needed, or even proposed. This is just one example of what may well be a systemic problem with the administration of the Davis-Bacon Act by the Department of Labor. Sixty-three years of artificially high construction costs are enough. The Davis-Bacon Act should be buried among other legislative antiquities. It is the perfect example of an outdated, expensive and unnecessary law. Whether or not the Davis-Bacon Act was ever really needed is debatable; but today Davis-Bacon remains law, giving some construction workers a bonus at the bargaining table at the taxpayer's expense. Enacted during the throes of the Depression, the Davis-Bacon Act required contractors on federally funded construction to pay the government mandated ``prevailing wage.'' Over the years, the prevailing wage requirements of the Act have been extended into many other Federal program, which would not have otherwise been covered by Davis-Bacon. Some $48 billion annually in federal construction spending falls under the Davis-Bacon Act requirements. In effect, the Davis-Bacon Act amounts to a ``tax'' on construction. The Congressional Budget Office says that the Davis-Bacon Act raises government construction costs on the order of $1 billion a year. That, however, is probably only a fraction of the cost. Contractors who pay less than Davis-Bacon wages on private construction projects are deterred from bidding on government projects because they fear the disruptive effects of two-tiered pay scales. Many contractors simply refuse to bid on Federal projects because they will have to pay some of their employees more than others for the same work. Thus, Federal work attracts less competition--and higher winning bids. The act is incapable of equitable administration. There are simply too many judgment calls required, too many indeterminate concepts. As a result, its administration is a mess and its wage rates are arbitrary and inconsistent. Responses to the Department of Labor's wage surveys are voluntary and the Department does not verify any of the data it receives. The Davis-Bacon Act is demonstrably unnecessary. Labor leaders warn that construction workers would be victimized and exploited without Davis-Bacon. Despite the rhetoric, unionized construction firms do compete effectively in many private markets which are not covered by the Davis-Bacon Act. Moreover, since the enactment of Davis-Bacon in 1931, other labor protection measures have become law, thus giving construction workers the same protections which are afforded to other workers in other industries. At a time when every American is being asked to sacrifice something in order to protect our children's future, it would be unconscionable to let Davis-Bacon continue to exist. Davis-Bacon may have had its time and purpose, but those are long since past. Now the act is just another expensive governmental burden to the taxpaying citizen. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [From NBC Nightly News, Oct. 11, 1995] The Fleecing of America/The Davis-Bacon Act Tom Brokaw. Time now for our regular Wednesday feature about your money and how your government wastes it. Tonight, how phantom construction projects are driving up the cost of real buildings. NBC's Robert Hager has details now in this Fleecing of America. Robert Hager. Mustang, Oklahoma, a rural town in the nation's heartland with a brand new $2 million underground storage tank. But where is it. Jim Morgan [City Manger]. No, this is not a underground storage tank. Hager. In fact, the underground tank was never built, needed or even proposed. It only exists in these documents, federal wage survey forms, fraudulently submitted to the U.S. Labor Department, complete with fake salaries and fake jobs, intended to persuade the government to set higher construction wage scales for that area. Remarkably, it worked. And since until recently by law, Oklahoma had to pay using the same wage scales, the state labor commissioner is furious, saying the fraud is costing taxpayers there millions of dollars. Brenda Reneau [Oklahoma Labor Commissioner]. The wage rate for this area was based on that non-existent or ghost project. Hager. A federal law, the Davis-Bacon Act, requires that construction workers on almost all U.S. government projects, be paid the prevailing or going salary for a specific region. Those salaries are set by the wage survey. But critics say many of those surveys are being rubber stamped without any checking. In Oklahoma, the impact on the state's wage rate is tremendous. A backhoe operator whose salary was 8.40 an hour started getting $22 an hour. A truck driver whose salary was 7.30 got $15 an hour. Total additional taxpayer cost, $21 million. On Capitol Hill there's concern. Rep. Cass Ballenger [R-North Carolina]. If they found out in Oklahoma that you could get away with cheating, it's not a secret they must have kept in Oklahoma. It's got to elsewhere in the country. Hager. And NBC News has learned the FBI is now investigating. Because of this, the U.S. Labor Department says it's limited in what it can say. Thomas Williamson [Labor Department Attorney]. We take very seriously allegations of fraud that call into question the integrity or accuracy of any wage surveys used by the David- Bacon program. Hager. In Oklahoma, more fakery. Someone wanted to double pay for asphalt workers, so a form was sent to the U.S. Labor Department claiming asphalt workers had made big wages to resurface a parking lot. But a look today reveals it was never paved with asphalt. Another survey detailed high wages to put up a building at a water treatment plant. But a look today reveals no building to be found, only barbed wire. Now, because of continued abuse, the U.S. Labor Department has withdrawn the prevailing wage rate for Oklahoma. And because she first raised questions of fraud, the state labor commissioner's life has been threatened. But that's not stopping her. Reneau. It's fraud. It's fraud at the fullest extent. Hager. No one has been charged yet, but there's growing concern that the system of setting wages on U.S. government construction projects is so flawed that it's fleecing taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars. Robert Hager, NBC News, Washington.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have detailed their own Medicare plan, best referred to as the Fred Astaire of Medicare. Light on its feet and even lighter on its details, the Democrats' plan dances around the hard decisions of the Medicare crisis in search of easy, look-good answers. It promises the seniors everything, everything except a Medicare system, because under the Democrats' plan, Medicare won't be around for the people who are 56 years old today. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to unlace those dancing shoes--don't give seniors the song and dance, then leave them to pay the band. Work with us to do what's right--let's save Medicare for the next generation, not just through the next election cycle.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, Democrats have accused Republicans of giving tax breaks to the rich. This is a blatant diversionary tactic. The Democrats have no plan to save Medicare. Rather than working to protect Medicare from bankruptcy, they would rather sling mud. The Republican tax proposals have nothing to do with Medicare. Our cuts in discretionary spending alone will save $151 billion. Savings in welfare and other mandatory spending programs will save $171 billion. So just in these two areas we save $322 billion, far more than our tax cuts. Democrats have got to realize that in most areas of government life it is time to tighten our belts. The American people mandated these changes in 1994. Now, it is up to us to see our promises will be kept. It is time to protect Medicare and assure beneficiaries that the program as they know it will continue to be available. It is not the time to scare our parents and grandparents into believing class warfare distortions.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Congress is under increasing pressure to balance the budget. The taxpayers are demanding that Government be more efficient and held accountable for the expenditure of their hard-earned tax dollars. The Davis-Bacon Act is the perfect example of a law that is expensive, unnecessary, and difficult to administer. The act must be considered in light of its economic effects as well as its objectives. The Davis-Bacon Act has long since outlived any usefulness it may have had. The rationale for special wage protection was never very persuasive but the act remains law, adding millions and millions of dollars to Federal construction costs. Davis-Bacon was enacted to discourage non-local contractors from securing Federal construction jobs by hiring cheap labor from outside of the project area. Proponents of the legislation complained that this practice was disruptive to the local wage structure. When the act was passed 64 years ago, there was no Federal minimum wage or other labor laws with protections for workers. Since that time, Congress has enacted numerous laws to protect the wages and working conditions of all workers, including construction workers. The taxpayers are the real losers under the Davis-Bacon Act. Some $48 billion of construction spending annually falls under the Act's coverage. In effect, Davis-Bacon is a tax on construction. For example in Baltimore, the Davis-Bacon requirements add between 5 and 10 percent to the costs of inner city housing. Davis-Bacon effectively wipes out much of the good that banks do when they provide lower interest rate loans to such projects. Clearly, Davis-Bacon drives up construction costs. Electricians in Philadelphia who are working on a Davis-Bacon project are paid about $37 an hour compared with electricians on a private contract who are paid an average of $15.76 an hour. Companies can not stay in business paying $15 to an employee who is worth $6. If companies have to pay $15 per hour, they are going to hire skilled workers, thus effectively shutting out those who need the opportunity to acquire job skills and work experience. The total cost of Davis-Bacon extends to State and local government construction programs, this having the same practical implications as an unfunded mandate. Davis-Bacon is particularly burdensome in the area of school construction, by restricting the ability of school districts to reduce construction costs. For example, the cost to build two schools and an academic center in Preston County, WV, could have been reduced by one-third or $1.9 million dollars, had the projects been exempt from Davis-Bacon. The savings could have been realized for the taxpayers or used in other ways through the educational system. There are additional costs to Federal agencies, which must collect, process, and disseminate thousands of wage rates. Likewise, there are direct costs to contractors who must comply with the recordkeeping and paperwork requirements under the Copeland Act. Compliance costs to the industry total nearly $100 million per year, money which could be better spent creating additional jobs. Recently, an investigative report was released which detailed fraud in the survey process used by the Department of Labor to determine prevailing wages in certain areas in Oklahoma. The report uncovered numerous instances of interested parties claiming phantom projects and ghost employees, all with the intent of inflating the official wage rates issued by the Department of Labor. In some cases, employees were allegedly paid $5 to $10 an hour more than actual market wages in the area. After repeated demands by local authorities and the involvement of members of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, the Department of Labor revoked the wage determinations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa because of the allegations of fraudulent data. Scandals of this nature erode public confidence in the Government procurement process. Repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act would have the taxpayers $2.7 billion over 5 years. It would allow the Federal Government to get more construction for the money, or to get the planned construction done for less money. Over 4,000 petitions were sent to Congress from taxpayers across the country supporting repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Last November, the voters sent a message to Washington. They want to end Government that is too big, costly, and intrusive. I urge my colleagues to support repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point about the impact of this bill on union organizing. An employer cannot use a team or committee to interfere with employees' ability to organize or engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. The law which makes it an unfair labor practice for employers to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights, guaranteed by section 7 of the NLRA, to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing--remains untouched by the TEAM Act. In a recent case, it was found that an employer's promise, the day before a union election, to establish a communications committee to deal with employee grievances was a violation of section 8(a)(1) because it was used as an inducement to persuade employees to vote against the union. This case remains good law even after passage of the TEAM Act. The bill specifically states that ``it shall not constitute or be evidence of a violation under this paragraph for an employer'' to establish and participate in an employee involvement structure. H.R. 743 also specifically provides in section four that ``Nothing in this Act shall affect employee rights and responsibilities contained in provisions other than section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.'' Thus, the other protections in section 8(a) of the NLRA which prohibit employer conduct that interferes with the right of employees to freely choose independent representation remain in full force. If employee involvement structures do not prove to be an effective means for employees to have input into the production and management policies that impact them, those employees have every right, and every reason, to formally organize.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, should cooperation between employees and employers be illegal? Today, 88 percent of the private sector work force cannot influence the terms and conditions of their employment by sitting down as a group with management and sharing ideas on improving the company. Those 88 percent are nonunionized workers, and it is illegal for employees and an employer to work together to resolve workplace issues using committees or teams that fall within the definition of a labor organization, unless those employees are represented by a union. An employer can have a suggestion box or hold a conference to discuss ideas in the abstract with employees, but it is illegal for an employer to follow through on any of these activities with actual workplace changes that are developed in consultation with the employees, unless those workers are represented by a union. The TEAM Act would give nonunion employees the same right as union employees--the right to work with the employer to resolve workplace issues. Join me in supporting H.R. 743, the TEAM Act so that all employees are fairly treated and able to participate in the process of workplace improvement.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing ``The Compensatory Time for All Workers Act of 1995'' which would allow private sector employers to offer employees the choice of taking time-and-a-half compensatory time as payment for overtime. In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] was written for a predominantly male work force and a marketplace primarily comprised of manufacturing firms. These demographics have dramatically changed. Today, women make up a much greater percentage of the work force, private enterprise is dominated by service and high technology industries rather than heavy manufacturing, global competition has significantly increased, and the lines between white and blue collar workers have been blurred. The FLSA, however, has failed to keep pace with these changes and, as such, restricts the ability of employers to meet the needs of their work force. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, which I chair, has heard from employees and employers of large and small companies, and State and local governments on a variety of problems which they face because of the act. Currently, the FLSA impedes an employer's ability to accommodate employee requests for greater flexibility in scheduling. Companies who want to be family friendly find that flexible scheduling can be extremely difficult for those employees who are covered by the act and whose hours must be kept track of. Suppose an employee has a terminally ill parent who lives several States away. Days off with pay can become precious for that employee when a 2-day weekend does not provide enough time to travel and spend time with that parent. Thus, when that employee works a few hours overtime each week, he or she may prefer to be paid with time off rather than money. However, the FLSA says the employee must receive money instead and is therefore forced to use previous paid leave to spend time with the ill parent. In 1985, Congress provided the public sector with the flexibility to use compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay. Congress has gone even further in providing flexibility for Federal workers. In 1978, Congress passed the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, which enabled Federal workers to arrange alternative work schedules which meet their personal needs and their employers' needs. This was so successful that Congress reauthorized the program in 1982 and 1985. President Clinton acknowledged the benefit of flexible scheduling when he directed all executive departments and agencies to expand their use of flexible family friendly work arrangements in a memorandum on July 11, 1994. In issuing the memorandum, Mr. Clinton stated, ``broad use of flexible work arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction, while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' It is time that private sector employees be given greater flexibility similar to what the public sector has enjoyed for some time. This legislation would allow employers to offer employees compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay under an agreement with the employee. If an employer made compensatory time available, employees would be free to choose to have their overtime compensated with cash or with paid time off. As with overtime pay, the compensatory time would accrue at a rate of time and a half. Employees who prefer to receive overtime pay would be free to choose this. Similarly, employers would have the [[Page E 1827]] choice of continuing to compensate their employees with overtime pay only. Employees who do not use the compensatory time would be paid for the time at the end of the year. The FLSA currently stands in the way of companies who attempt to utilize flexible human resource strategies in order to allow workers to pursue more fulfilling combinations of work, family life, and other interests. As the percentage of employees who must balance work and family issues grows rapidly, there is more and more pressure from employees for increased control over their work schedule. Flexibility in the workplace continues to rank high on the list of issues of major concern to most employees. This legislation would allow employers to provide employees with the choice of overtime pay or compensatory time to help ease the burdens of juggling work and personal responsibilities.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that liberal Democrats work feverishly at nothing. At times they seem all bent out of shape and exercised beyond belief. It is truly a spectacle to behold. They cry and whine, and whine and cry, but they have proposed not one, not even one, idea to preserve Medicare or Medicaid. To illustrate my point, this weekend, liberal Democrats will start a series of mock hearings on Medicare. Or should I say fake hearings--as opposed to the dozens of real hearings Congress has held since the release of the Medicare trustees report last April. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that Democrats would hold fake hearings because that really gets to the heart of their commitment level to saving and strengthening Medicare. They would rather pose and posture at a fake hearing than come up with real solutions in the real Congress.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 1617. The Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act or CAREERS is quite an elaborate name for legislation aimed solely at simplifying and improving our current maze of job training and employment assistance programs. As a Member of the House who acknowledges the direct correlation between program design and program success, I urge all of my colleagues to listen closely to this debate today and decide to vote in favor of creating a well-designed model for the deliverance of job training and employment assistance services. We currently refer to our various fragmented job training and employment-related programs as ones formulating a system, which is laughable because the word system implies that there is some from of orderly program interaction taking place. This is not the case. The U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] has identified 163 different programs, totaling $20 billion, which offer some type of career related, education, job training or employment assistance to youth and adults. Further, the Associate Director for Education and Employment issues at GAO recently testified that the current employment, training assistance programs are narrowly tailored, leaving programs to compete for clients and funds. He then, in his testimony, went on to question the system's overall efficiency. A potluck approach to Federal job training and employment assistance is a disservice to the adults and youth looking to utilize these programs. The CAREERS bill offers us a chance to streamline, improve the Federal effort in this important area. We will be working through this legislation to create a real training and employment system, equipped with easy customer access and choice. No one should be faced with a maze of noncoordinated programs when progressing toward employment objectives. CAREERS requires States and local work force development areas to establish integrated career center systems in which individuals may obtain services and familiarize themselves with the State's work force development system. This integrated system is user friendly and enables individuals to gain quick access to all parts of the system. Let us be clear, CAREERS does not mandate that you establish one-stop centers. Under CAREERS, one could enter the State career system through a colocated center, one-stop center or through an electronically linked affiliated site. The legislative intent is the creation of an integrated system where the user is best served. I think it is important to point out that when we talk of an integrated system, we are not advocating the creation of a generic delivery system, one unable to meet the needs of the diverse people who will ultimately use these programs. The block grants included in CAREERS are all structured to assure that attention is focused on the four, distinct populations seeking service. Clearly, the one-size-fits- all approach will not work in this area. I am pleased that CAREERS not only allows for local control, customer choice, and customer accessibility but is also wisely structured so that diverse populations may be served. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and look forward to passage of H.R. 1617, the CAREERS.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Washington political machine seems often to operate under shades of truth, as if the difference between truth and fabrication cannot be seen. This rule has never been more evident than in the President's recent comments about our student loan proposals. The use of misinformation is a cheap tool used by those in a defensive position with no valid arguments against the real truth. If one sifts through the lies being spread about our work in the student loan area, one would clearly see that we are not waging a war against our Nations students nor are we planning to lessen educational opportunities for them. By eliminating the Direct Loan Program, a program with exaggerated savings and benefits, and making other adjustments in the student loan area, which will make loans available to students, we are able to ensure that no student will lose eligibility or access to college loans, keep the inschool interest subsidy, and maintain the current loan origination fee and interest rates on student loans. That is the plain and simple truth. And, because the truth is politically unpalatable to the President, he has chosen to create his own truth. America's students deserve to get accurate and reliable information. I urge all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to get the accurate information on this important issue.