Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to take this opportunity to address and explain two provisions contained in the Republican welfare reform bill, a bill which I fully support because it fixes our broken welfare system. As we are all aware, the Personal Responsibility Act rightfully prohibits illegal aliens from receiving aid under all federal and state means tested public benefits programs. The bill also bars legal nonimmigrants like students, tourists and businessmen from receiving the same benefits, with a few exceptions. One of these exceptions allows temporary agricultural workers to remain eligible for medical services provided through migrant health centers and a few other means tested programs. We are not explaining the eligibility of these workers for other benefit programs, merely allowing them to remain in the programs for which they are currently eligible. It is important to note that employers request these workers be brought into the United States, and the request is only granted after the employer demonstrates that all measures have been used to employ U.S. citizens for the vacant positions. The alien workers enter the country legally and are paid the same rate as a U.S. citizen would be employed in the same position. These workers are, again, legally here for a specific time and for a specific reason. It seems appropriate that these invited workers should be able to receive limited assistance like medical attention at a migrant health center. Let me now address the school meal provisions included in the bill. Although liberals consider me something of a pinch-penny, even most severe critics had never accused me of scheming to take food from the mouths of impoverished children. At least, not until recently. What inspired a harsh reassessment of my character, and the character of other House Republicans, is the proposed overhaul of food and nutrition programs that provide nourishment for the nation's needy school children. As a Member of the Opportunities Committee, the committee which worked diligently to craft the school meal reforms contained in this welfare reform bill, I support efforts to simplify regulations, cut red tape and grant States greater flexibility in operating school food and nutrition programs. Essentially, here is what these changes would mean: Current separate State and Federal applications, rules on eligibility and regulations would be replaced with a single system. States could allow school districts greater latitude in meeting their specific needs. Funding would be made in block grants to the States, which would establish their own spending and program priorities. The net results of these changes would be to increase--not reduce-- funding for nutrition and food programs, and to simplify (not further complicate) their administration. That, in a nutshell, is what all the fuss is about. Does that sound like cruel indifference? I do not deny--or apologize for--being frugal with the taxpayer's money. At the same time, I do not begrudge even one of the billions of dollars spent on food for hungry children. Indeed, if we are to err in our estimate of how much should be spent on this vital program, I would prefer come down on the side of generosity. However, much of the money we are now earmarking for nutrition is being consumed by a Federal supply and regulatory system that is needlessly complex and wasteful. President Clinton, among other critics, has attempted to portray this proposal as Republican indifference disguised as reform. That is pure poppycock. What we are attempting to do here is introduce administrative efficiency and fiscal sanity to a program that will nurture children rather than continue to feed an insatiable Federal bureaucracy. If that makes me a tightwad, so be it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I have asked groups of people back home if the news media have explained to them that the Republican School Lunch Program is increasing by over 4 percent per year for 5 years or that we are increasing funding for WIC, Women Infants, and Children's Program, by over $1 billion over 5 years? Their answer is they have not heard. The Democrats started the lie about the cuts and the news media have compounded that lie. We are increasing funding for school lunch programs and also for WIC. I wish the other side would tell the truth, and likewise for the news media. It seems only Rush Limbaugh is telling the truth.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy regarding State OSHA programs with Chairman Porter. The committee bill includes a $16 million reduction in OSHA spending for fiscal year 1995. As I understand it, this rescission represents the entire increase over the fiscal year 1994 appropriation. The agency will have an operating budget of $296,428,000 for fiscal year 1995. I would like to clarify one point. In fiscal year 1994, State program enforcement received $68.630 million and State program enforcement received $70.615 million in fiscal year 1995, an increase of $1.985 million. It is my understanding that State programs will not be reduced by any more than the original increase of $1.985 million. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, is this your understanding?

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for clarifying the point.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLay amendment. In spite of what the opposition says, no one ever died of ergonomics. Today we have the opportunity to say no to the runaway Federal regulators. Earlier this year, in a bipartisan vote, the House passed H.R. 450, which placed a moratorium on all new Federal regulations until December 31, 1995. The passage of this bill and other regulatory reforms was intended to send a signal to Federal departments of countless regulations that strangle competitiveness and economic growth. However, one agency did not get the message, OSHA. Earlier this week, one of the top bureaucrats at OSHA's ergonomics team indicated that the agency will be pushing forward with plans to establish an ergonomics rule, blatantly flouting the will of Congress. Plainly, OSHA wants to continue the practice of business as usual. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Work Force Protection of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the subcommittee with jurisdiction over OSHA issues, let me tell the Members that the proposal on ergonomics is one of the broadest and most expansive health and safety regulations in recent times. An ergonomics rule has the potential of devastating business and altering every job in America. Let us not forget that the rationales for the ergonomics regulation is not based on sound and strong scientific evidence. There is a clear choice before us today. A vote against the DeLay amendment will signal Federal bureaucrats, particularly those in OSHA, that the business of issuing needless burdensome regulation should continue. A vote for the DeLay amendment will tell OSJA that it cannot impose a new socially-engineered workplace policy, which will literally affect every American worker, unless it is based on sound scientific and cost analysis. Vote for the DeLay amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Attorney General Janet Reno recommended appointing an independent special counsel to investigate the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros. It seems that Secretary Cisneros may have lied to the FBI during his background check regarding payments he has made over the years to his mistress. Reports suggest that the payments he made to his mistress are much larger than he originally reported to the FBI. Mr. Speaker, let us review the names of President Clinton's closest advisers that have resigned or are under a cloud of suspicion: Jocelyn Elders, Mike Espy, Les Aspin, Webster Hubbell, Robert Altman, Ron Brown, and now Henry Cisneros. Mr. Speaker, who is next? It is no wonder the President and his Democrat colleagues are spending so much time distorting the facts of our Contract With America. They have no ideas of their own, and their own administration is in a shambles.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, freedom and responsibility. These are two of the most important goals of our welfare programs, and right now, these are the two goals we have not achieved. For over 3 years the Federal Government has thrown more and more money into entitlements that just continue the cycle of poverty and dependence. Throwing more money at our problems just does not work. Our social safety net has become a black hole from which there is often no return. Let us give the States a chance to solve their own social welfare problems on their own. Giving the States back the right to take care of their own people makes good sense. The welfare needs of Idaho or Wyoming are certainly different from those of New York. Congress should learn to appreciate the diversity between States and let each one tackle poverty and hunger in its own unique way. We have had our chance. Now let us have the States show us what they can do.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, with all the distortion, deceit, and deception coming from the other side of the aisle on the issue of welfare reform, I think it is time to remind my Democrat colleagues that welfare has been a colossal failure. Since 1965, we have spent $5 trillion on welfare, an amount greater than our total national debt. An amount greater than the cost of winning World War II--even in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars. But far from winning the War on Poverty, we have spent $5 trillion and poverty has won, or at least is winning. Consider the sad facts. Since the end of World War II, poverty in America had been declining at a rapid and steady rate. But as welfare spending increased in the late 1960's and early 1970's, the poverty rate leveled off and began climbing, reversing a decades long trend in the other direction. So why do the Democrats fight so hard to preserve a system that has been such a failure? Why do they want to perpetuate a system that has trapped so many in a cycle of dependency? Why are they so wedded to the old order?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, did you hear the one about the guy who was fined by OSHA for not having a comprehensive hazardous communication plan for his employees--all two of them. How about the $100,000 spent on a study of quiet areas in restaurants. Or the OSHA fine levied against a small business because they had a can of Pledge in a work trailer with no material safety data sheet on hand. And, one of my favorites, the construction company that was fined because workers were not using disposable cups. These are all great stories--and they would be very entertaining if they did not symbolize such a job crunching, budget busting, competition killing, business breaking, economic catastrophe in America. It is time to restore common sense and civility to the regulatory process. The cost of doing nothing is too high for individuals and businesses in America. Let us act now.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on February 3, 1995, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 90. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' to this substitute amendment that would have allowed a simple majority approval vote to override a Presidential line-item veto. On February 10, 1995, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 118. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of final passage of H.R. 668, the Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 7. Mr. Chairman, the results from the November 8 elections demonstrate the American voter's overall dissatisfaction with Congress. Recognizing this concern, many of us signed the Contract With America, to clearly illustrate our promise to eliminate weak leadership and destructive policies. Since January 4, we have been working very hard to bring 10 bills compromising the contract to the floor during the first 100 legislative days of the 104th Congress. We have passed several of these bills, however, and now we must address the next item, H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation which was successfully voted out of four committees of jurisdiction including the International Relations Committee, of which I am a member. The bill expresses many of my sentiments toward foreign policy, particularly regarding the current administration. Yes, the world of today differs tremendously from that of the 1980's, therefore our foreign policy must change and continue to change as we move into the next century. However, it is time we restore America's reputation as a superpower; we must repair our strength and credibility damaged by the policies of the Clinton Administration. The Clinton administration's bottom-up review of the U.S. military has severely undermined our readiness by reducing defense funding and personnel. The question that needs to be asked now is: Can the United States defend itself against an attack, or more than one attack? H.R. 7 would address this inadequacy in several ways. First, it would renew the United States' commitment to an effective national missile defense by requiring the Department of Defense [DOD] to develop and deploy antiballistic missile and theater missile defense as early as practicable. Second, the bill would require the creation of the National Security Commission, a bipartisan panel of independent defense experts, to assess force structure, readiness, strategic vision, modernization, and personnel policies. In the end, these provisions would return our military to the level of force that is capable of protecting our shores and projecting our might anywhere in the world. As we have all witnessed, costly multinational peacekeeping operations, under the auspices of the United Nation in both Somalia and Bosnia have failed to produce the desired outcomes, and support for these operations has declined across America. Currently, the United States pays the cost of these missions sponsored by the United Nations, as well as peacekeeping operations we initiate. The United States is responsible for 25 percent of the U.N.'s normal operating budget and 31.7 percent of the cost of each U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping operation. Our funding of U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions is not counted toward our contribution to the U.N. operating budget. Furthermore, although Congress appropriated $1.2 billion in 1994 to pay for peacekeeping, the State Department estimates that the United States could fall behind by another $800 million by the end of fiscal 1995. This arrangement clearly cannot continue. Under H.R. 7, the United States, while continuing to fund peacekeeping mission, we would begin to count this cost as part of our overall contribution to the United Nations. However, under this legislation, the United States will write off the cost of unilateral peacekeeping missions like the one in Haiti, from its U.N. bills. We have heard arguments that any provision requiring the U.S. Government to subtract costs incurred by the United States for participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities from the United States assessed U.N. contribution could be fatal to U.N. peacekeeping. However, according to a study conducted by the General Accounting Office [GAO], provisions to limit U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations will not completely eliminate U.S. funds. Included in these U.N. provisions is a section that I find very intriguing. Section 511 requires the withholding of 20 percent of assessed U.S. contributions of the regular U.N. budget and 50 percent of all assessed and voluntary U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations each year until the President certifies: The creation of an independent office of the Inspector General chosen for his/her ability and integrity; the Inspector General has access to all records and officials at the United Nations; the United Nations will protect whistleblowers who cooperate with the Inspector General, and the reports of the Inspector General are made available to the General Assembly of the United Nations without change. The United Nations has a record of wasting money and at times has acted in a corrupt manner. However, with an Inspector General's office, we can carefully check to ensure U.S. taxpayers' dollars are put to an honest and proper use, reflecting American perspectives. This section fits perfectly into current efforts by Congress to review all levels of government for efficiency and costs. H.R. 7 would also make a fundamental change--one that has been advanced by former Joint Chief of Staff Colin Powell--that would restrict the ability of the President to place U.S. troops under foreign command. This step is taken because the American people do not trust nor have confidence in the United Nations. The lives of our young men and women should not be placed at risk somewhere in the world by a foreign commander. H.R. 7 would change this policy. Lastly, the bill contains provisions to reemphasize the commitment of the United States to a strong and viable NATO alliance, urging that we assist the Eastern European democracies with the transition to full NATO membership. NATO must adapt to the reality of the post-cold-war Europe. Expansion would ultimately benefit these countries by encouraging integration into the West. In the contract, we made promises--promises we plan to keep. In the post-cold-war period, the passage of the National Security Revitalization Act marks an improvement in our foreign policy by acknowledging the Clinton administration precipitated the decline in military readiness; by restricting future participation in U.N. programs; by developing defense against ballistic missile attack, and pledging American leadership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. Join me in voting in favor of H.R. 7.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people listening note the contrast between what the Democrats are talking--trivial, mean- spirited nonsense--and what we are talking about--the important issues facing America. It is a pity that they have nothing worthwhile to say. If there is one thing the American people appreciate is hard work. After all, we are a nation built on hard work. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that the statistics are in, and this January was the most productive since before 1981. Let's compare some average numbers for the first January in each Congress from 1981 to 1993 with the January just ended. Number of hours in session--1981-93: 28. This Congress: 115. Number of votes--1981-93: 9.3. This Congress: 79. Number of committee/subcommittee sessions--1981-93: 25.4. This Congress: 155. Number of measures reported out of committee--1981-93: 1.6. This Congress: 14. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. This has been the most productive Congress in recent history.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as Republicans worked to pass an unfunded mandate reform bill last week, President Clinton worked to pass another unfunded mandate on our private sector. Maybe I missed something, but I thought the election of last November was about change. So far this year, the only thing the Democrats have wanted to change is the subject. From the balanced budget amendment to the line-item veto, the liberal Democrats have consistently supported the status quo. With the President's minimum wage proposal, they have reached back again to the past for an issue they hope will help them in the polls. But the American people are no longer satisfied with old solutions to new problems. They do not want bigger government and bigger mandates. They want a more effective and more efficient federal Government. I challenge the President to join Republicans in changing the way Government works. Let us work together to ease the regulatory burden on our small business. We worked together to pass a line-item veto. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to stop changing the subject and work with Republicans in changing the Government.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will: Force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third, and cut the congressional budget; we have done that. It goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have done this; unfunded Mandates Legislation--we have done this; Line-item veto; a new crime bill to stop violent criminals; Welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat Dads and protect our children; Tax Cuts from Families to lift Government's burden from middle income Americans; National Security Restoration to Protect our Freedoms; Senior Citizens; Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; Government regulatory reform; commonsense legal Reform to end frivolous, lawsuits, and Congressional term limits to make congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency is just one of the many Federal agencies that are stiffing local and State governments with bills they do not pay for. For instance the EPA wants the city of Dallas, TX, to totally redesign its 4,500 mile long sewer system. This redesign would cost $3 billion. This figure equals roughly three times their yearly budget. This is one of the many examples of an unfunded mandate. There are probably thousands more just like it. Mr. Speaker, unfunded mandates must be reformed because they impose a crowding-out effect on State and local governments. Instead of funding the basics like fire and rescue, hospitals, highways, and law enforcement, local and State governments are forced to fund excessive, and sometimes exotic, Federal regulations. We must act now to curb these excesses and return the Federal Government the principles of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the one book that the Democrats are real scared of is the Contract With America. This book is No. 3 on the New York Times best seller list. It is so popular because it is the change the American people have been waiting for. It is the doing. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my colleagues from the other side of the aisle read this book because we are leading the change and they had better learn how to follow. This book changes Congress and the Democrats only want to change the subject.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are constantly asking us how are we going to balance the budget by 2002. But a more pertinent question is when do my liberal, big-spending colleagues on the other side of the aisle plan to balance the budget? If you do not think it should be done by the year 2002, 7 years from now, when do you think it should be done? Isn't a $5 trillion debt enough? The Democrats do not want a balanced budget amendment for one reason. They want Americans addicted to big Government because they are the party of big Government. You know, I think it is important to address the moral dimension of deficit spending. Thrift, frugality, and deferred gratification are virtues. But deficit spending is a vice that has been used by big- spending politicians as just another incumbent-protection device. In the words of Harry Hopkins, they would ``borrow and borrow, spend and spend, elect and elect.'' But those days are about to end, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton three- fifths tax limitation version of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Earlier this month in an article in the Wall Street Journal, Milton Friedman, who received the 1976 Nobel Prize in economics, argued why a tax limitation amendment is so very important. The Barton amendment's limitation on taxes would force the achievement of a balanced budget through a reduction in spending rather than an increase in taxes unless a super-majority of three-fifths voted to raise taxes. The other amendments are not as strong, because there is nothing in them to prevent balance from being achieved by a massive tax increase. And, nothing to prevent further increases in Government spending as long as they were accompanied by higher taxes. After all, as Mr. Friedman argued, ``the real burden on the economy is what the government spends--or mandates others to spend--rather than how much it received in taxes.'' If you raise taxes, you can spend more--even with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, if that amendment does not limit tax increases. I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity and cut Government down to size. Vote for the right kind of balanced budget amendment--the Barton three-fifths tax limitation amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the biggest bankruptcy in the world today is not occurring in Orange County or even in Mexico, but on the minority side of the aisle right here in this Chamber. With their petty parliamentary pranks, the Democrats are driving themselves into the intellectual bankrputcy. However, while the Democrats are busy committing slow political suicide, Republicans are making good on their promises to the American people to pass an unfunded mandate bill and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have news for my friends on the other side of the aisle. No amount of partisan sniping is going to distract us from doing the real work the American people sent us here to do. After we finish blowing the dust off the 10th amendment the Democrats for years have ignored, by passing an unfunded mandates bill, we are going to pass a balanced budget amendment as an encore. While we are trying to change the Government, the Democrats just want to change the subject.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, our Democrat friends seem to have ignored one of the major factors that they have introduced into labor law in this Congress in the last four years. It is called an earned income tax credit. It actually was invented by our friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], but they thought it was such a great idea that in this last session of Congress we put in the earned income tax credit. The nice part about the earned income tax credit is the Federal Government pays the cost. If we take the minimum wage today and add to it what could be the additional income that the people at the bottom of the wage scale get, there is $1.21 an hour that people could add to the minimum wage right now because of the beneficence of this Congress, the Democrats and Republicans. If they want to continue this and they want to help out local government without mandates, all they have to do is increase the earned income tax credit. The great part about that is the local government does not pay it, the State government does not pay it, the Federal Government pays it in an earned income tax credit. This is a wonderful idea they have invented, and all of a sudden now the minimum wage has become the great wonderful thing. It does not get the aid to the people that need it, Mr. Chairman. The majority of people that earn the minimum wage are not poor people, they are a bunch of young kids working and getting into the whole labor market. Mr. Chairman, when we increase the minimum wage, we increase the level of the beginning. The people that are really hurt there are people that are looking for jobs, the ones that cannot cut it anyhow. Why not put in the earned income tax credit? The major idea is, the earned income tax credit is something that has been invented. It is a good idea and does a great deal more. One other thing I would like to bring up: OSHA, which I am sure has been discussed already, OSHA, which is administered by 23 States at the present time on a voluntary effort on their part, has nothing to do with this bill at all. They have already voluntarily accepted OSHA, and nothing happens in this bill that is going to change that, unless the Federal Government forces some sort of new regulation and they give over $500 million more to bring that about. OSHA is safe. The earned income tax credit solves the problem they are speaking about.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a call from a very angry constituent who had the unfortunate experience of watching yesterday's House proceedings. His message to me was simply: ``Quit your bickering and get on with it.'' Mr. Speaker, my constituent is right on the money. We do need to get on with it and that is why the renewed conviction I call on my fellow Members to join me in passing a balanced budget amendment. Because Congress has for years proven incapable of fiscal discipline, only a strong tax limitation balanced budget amendment will force Congress to kick the habit of reckless spending. I do recognize that Congress has tried in the past to restrain its voracious spending, but somehow these efforts always prove to be in vain. This must not and cannot continue. The American people have spoken. They want a leaner and less intrusive government. They want us to put our financial house in order. And, finally, they want us to end politics as usual that leads to partisan bickering and gridlock.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, what are the real issues facing Americans today? Nonexisting payments for book deals or House historians who are on the job for 1 day? I do not think they really care about that. Americans are concerned about the economy. They are concerned with how our Government affects their lives, they are concerned about their children's future. Republicans are ready to debate the real issues facing Americans today. We are ready to clean up Congress and that huge, overbloated Federal bureaucracy. We are ready to pass legislation that our constituents want, like a ban on unfunded mandates and a balanced budget amendment. I implore my colleagues from the other aisle to join with us in a bipartisan fashion to change Congress, not change the subject.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by many of my colleagues in the introduction of legislation to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. In one way or another, the act is expensive, inflationary, unnecessary, restrictive, and generally harmful to the structure and development of the construction industry. The act adds billions of dollars to Federal construction costs and the American taxpayers are picking up the tab. Enacted during the throes of the Depression, the Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors on Federally funded construction to pay the prevailing wage. Now, more than 60 statutes incorporate the Davis-Bacon wage requirements by reference. In some instances, coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act has been further extended to situations in which the Federal Government merely has an interest through ownership participation, funds guaranty, or cases where the Federal Government contributes a minimal amount to a State or local project. The rationale for special wage protection was never very persuasive but Davis-Bacon has remained in place since 1931, giving some construction workers a bonus at the bargaining table at the taxpayer's expense. For example, electricians working in Philadelphia on a Davis- Bacon project are paid $37.97 an hour compared with electricians on a private contract who are paid an average of $15.76 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Davis-Bacon Act raises Federal construction costs nearly $1 billion a year. Repeal of the act would allow the Federal Government to fund more construction projects with the money which is being spent, or to get the planned construction done for less money. Finally, the Davis-Bacon Act is demonstrably unnecessary. Despite claims by labor leaders that workers would be victimized and exploited without Davis-Bacon, unionized construction firms do compete effectively in many private markets where Davis-Bacon does not apply. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which was enacted 7 years after the enactment of Davis-Bacon, establishes a minimum wage and overtime rate of 1\1/2\ times the hourly rate for employees working more than 40 hours in a week. By repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, the taxpayers will be saved an estimated $3.1 billion in construction costs and bureaucratic overhead over the next 5 years. Sixty-three years of artificially high construction costs are enough. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing an awful lot of griping from the defenders of big government these days. With the balanced budget amendment on the verge of passage in the House, there are Democrats who still oppose this important government reform. They are attempting to derail the amendment by disingenuously demanding to know how we plan on spending each and every penny in the year 2002. Well, it is amazing they can look across a kitchen table at ordinary Americans without turning red from embarrassment. Their argument against a balanced budget amendment is essentially: ``We don't want to cut government spending. Period.'' As American businesses continue to tighten their belts, as a American families watch their paychecks shrink and their children's future become ever darker under the long shadow of government's growing debt, the defenders of big government are digging in. They talk a lot about working families but they refuse to life a finger to save America's middle class from government's out-of-control spending. The Republican contract with America is our commitment to cut the size score, and cost of government. The balanced budget amendment will forever guarantee that Congress of the future will never again be allowed to spend our children into the near bottomless pit of debt we are in today.