Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Isakson).

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

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues on our plate, but there are two in particular that the American people are demanding action on. The American people want us to take advantage of our current prosperity to pay off the multi-trillion dollar public debt that the Democrats racked up in their 30-year stranglehold on Congress, and they want to do something about prescription drugs. No senior should ever have to choose between putting food on the table and filling prescriptions when the doctor gives them. Well, we are paying down the debt all right. By the end of the next year, we will have paid off a half a trillion dollars on the national debt, and done it while protecting 100 percent of Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses. But the Democrats and the President are blocking any progress on the prescription drug issue. You see, as long as they can keep us from implementing our plan, and it is a good one, they can keep accusing us of having done nothing. Well, the American people need to know we have acted on the prescription drugs issue. We passed a plan that is effective, fair and comprehensive. We passed a plan that would give seniors solid coverage, even on catastrophic expenses, something Al Gore's plan would make them wait years for. But Democrats are blocking it because they do not want Republicans to get any credit for it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today, Lees-McRae College in Banner Elk, North Carolina, celebrates its centennial. It is altogether fitting that we pause to honor the vision and accomplishments of its founder, the Reverend Edgar Tufts, on this celebrated day. For 100 years, Lees-McRae College has provided a quality, student- centered, values-based education. From its humble beginning in Edgar Tuft's study, Lees-McRae has grown into a fully accredited baccalaureate institution. In addition, Lees-McRae is committed to being an integral part of the larger community, as witnessed by its outreach projects, cooperative programs with area schools, and humanitarian service activities. Lees-McRae College is an institution of which the entire Nation should be proud, and we wish it well as it enters its second century.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I know prescription drugs are a major part of the effort to reach a settlement so that we can go home. I am a senior citizen and I qualify for Medicare. I am at the age where every night I have to use Zocor and Cardura and Claritin D and Timoptin, but I pay for them myself. We in Congress earn over $140,000 a year. And those of us in Congress who are elderly should not receive government assistance in the form of Medicare benefits. We earn enough that we do not need assistance. Congress should target those who do. Unfortunately, the Democrats' proposed universal prescription drug plan would help those of us who do not need it. The Democrats would fund the Ballengers and the Houghtons and the Kennedies who are fortunate enough that they can easily cover their own drug costs. There are actually 66 Members of Congress who would benefit from the Democrat drug program. We should not be allowed to have that benefit. That is why on June 28, 3 months ago, the House passed H.R. 4680, a Medicare prescription drug passage which the Republican leadership championed. The House-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit would utilize a public-private partnership to let those seniors choose the right coverage from several competing drug plans. It would allow them to keep their existing coverage. This plan would protect seniors from high, out-of-pocket drug costs without resorting to price fixing or government price controls. Most importantly, the House-passed prescription drug benefit is affordable, valuable and completely voluntary and it should be part of the settlement. We need to pass this rule and the bill to continue negotiations.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, let me pose a mathematical problem. When the President finally finishes his budget negotiations with the Congress, he will have spent the projected budget surplus and more. Where will he go to find the money to finance his liberal spending programs? How about a big cigarette tax? That ought to make everyone happy. In the North Carolina Senate, when we raised the tax, guess what happened. Tax incomes shrank, as it did in other States that raised the cigarette tax. So I ask the President, why this large cigarette tax. It will not produce more income for anybody except the Feds because it will be a new item to them. The States will lose income; and the President's friends, the trial lawyers, probably could not collect their billion- dollar settlements. So what is up, Mr. President? Mr. President, either you find extra money elsewhere or you really risk losing your best friends, the trial lawyers.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, first let me say the Federal Reserve has done a great job in keeping our economy strong and growing. Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration's lack of a coherent energy policy threatens that very economic prosperity. As I speak, fuel prices around the Nation and around the world are skyrocketing as the price of oil tops $37 per barrel. Rising fuel prices affect every sector of the economy and eventually every American. Airlines are increasing fares; truckers, who deliver our food, medicine, and virtually everything else are straining to meet their contractual obligations and pay for fuel that is now costing an average of $1.62 cents a gallon. As consumer prices rise, consumer spending will decrease, leading to sluggish sales, larger inventories and slower growth. So, Mr. Speaker, what is the administration's answer to the pending crisis? Well, instead of using the 8 years they had in office to develop an energy policy which would have prevented this crisis, the Clinton-Gore administration squandered those opportunities and now is only offering last-minute solutions, like begging Saudi Arabia to increase oil production. For an administration that has not been ashamed to take all the credit for the current economy, I hope they do as much to solve this crisis than just admit, as they did in the spring, that they fell asleep at the switch.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleague and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, the Honorable Major R. Owens, in the introduction of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation will address an important public health issue confronting our nation's health care workers. The Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act derives from the convergence of two critical circumstances that have a profound effect on the safety of health care workers. The first circumstance is the increased concern over accidental needlestick injuries suffered by health care workers each year in health care settings. ``Needlesticks'' is a term used broadly, as health care workers can suffer injuries from a broad array of ``sharps'' used in health care settings, from needles to IV catheters to lancets. The second circumstance is the technological advancements made over the past decade in the many types of ``safer medical devices'' that can be used in health care settings to help protect health care workers against sharps injuries. The Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act would modify the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030), one of the leading health and safety standards promulgated by the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The legislation builds on the most recent action taken by OSHA related to the Bloodbome Pathogens Standard--the November 1999 revision of OSHA's Compliance Directive on Enforcement Procedures for the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens. The concern about accidental injuries to health care workers from contaminated sharps first entered the public consciousness in the mid- 1980's as concern over the AIDS epidemic grew, along with concern about the spread of hepatitis B. By the end of the decade, there were a number of documented cases of health care workers contracting the HIV virus by accidentally getting stuck with a needle when treating a patient. In 1991, responding to many of those concerns, OSHA issued the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, which specified workplace safety requirements to protect against occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Since that time, numerous studies have demonstrated the continuing serious risk to health care workers of percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. In March of this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that more than 380,000 percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps occur annually among health care workers in United States hospital settings. Estimates for all health care settings are that 600,000 to 800,000 needlestick and other percutaneous injuries occur among health care workers annually. At an average hospital, workers incur approximately 30 reported needlestick injuries per 100 beds per year. While most reported needlestick injuries involve nursing staff--laboratory staff, physicians, housekeepers, and other health care workers are also injured. At a Subcommittee on Workforce Protections hearing in June, Mr. Charles Jeffress, the Assistant Secretary of OSHA, testified about the most recent federal action to address this issue--OSHA's revised Compliance Directive on Enforcement Procedures for Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens. While the goals of the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard are clearly stated, many aspects of the standard give employers considerable flexibility in choosing the methods most feasible for accomplishing those goals. Thus, the standard directs employers to use engineering controls and work practices to eliminate or minimize employee exposure to bloodborne pathogens, but it does not list or specify particular engineering controls (such as which medical devices) that employers must use. This approach allows the rule to take into account the continual progress of medical research and technology and the diversity of workplaces and workplace operations and processes, and allows the employer to detennine what engineering controls will provide the best protection. A highlight of the revised Compliance Directive, and indeed one of the main reasons for its revision, is the emphasis on the need for employers to identify, evaluate, and make use of effective commercially available engineering controls, including ``safer medical devices'' to reduce or minimize the risks of occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. These devices are also referred to as ``safety devices'' or ``safe-needle devices,'' but their common element is that they have a built-in safety mechanism that reduces or eliminates exposure to the needle or sharp. Neither the Compliance Directive, nor the current bloodborne pathogens standard advocates the use of one particular device over another. At the Subcommittee hearing, a consensus among all of the witnesses was that choosing and using a safer medical device is a complicated process for many reasons, not the least of which is that most health care settings, particularly hospitals, are enormously complex work environments. While no one type of intervention in the workplace will completely eliminate the risk of exposure, numerous studies have demonstrated that the use of safer-medical devices, when they are part of an overall bloodborne pathogens risk-reduction program, can be extremely effective in reducing accidental sharps injuries. Witnesses also stressed the importance of including health care workers in the selection and evaluation of newer devices. This is particularly so because there are many types of safer medical devices available on the market and using them may involve some adjustment in technique on the part of the health care worker. It is also important for facilities to have some type of surveillance system, such as a sharps injury log, in place to monitor the sharps injuries. This type of system is useful both for helping a facility track its high risk areas and for evaluating which types of devices are most effective. While the revised OSHA Compliance Directive emphasizes ``safer medical devices,'' the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard does not include safer medical devices in its examples of engineering controls. And so, this legislation would include that language in the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The bill requires that the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard explicitly state that employers must document in their Exposure Control Plans the consideration and implementation of appropriate commercially available and effective engineering controls, such as safer medical devices. This legislation does not advocate the use of one particular device over another and it would not change the flexible-performance-oriented nature of the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. In addition, the bill would add two new sections to the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The first section adds a new part to the Standard's recordkeeping section, specifying that employers maintain a ``sharps injury log'' for the recording of percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. Through the use of this log, employers would be able to better monitor sharps injuries and by doing so, better evaluate high risk areas and the types of engineering controls and devices that are most effective in reducing or minimizing the risk of exposure. Employers may decide what information is useful and the information must be recorded in such a manner as to protect the confidentiality of the injured employee. The log would record the type of device used, an explanation of the incident and where it occurred. Employers who are exempt from maintaining OSHA 200 logs, such as employers with 10 or fewer employees, would likewise be exempt from maintaining a sharps injury log. A second section would be added to the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard to specify that employers solicit input from frontline health care workers (non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care) in the identification, evaluation and selection of effective engineering and work practice controls and to document that solicitation in the Exposure Control Plan. Sixteen states have already passed some type of safe needle legislation over the past two years and many other states are considering similar legislation. These state actions result in coverage of state public health care facilities and state public employees both of which are not reached by federal OSHA, except in those states which are OSHA state plan states. I hope that our action on the federal level will encourage more states to take similar action--as it is well within their prerogatives to do--and adopt the same standards as those we are putting forward today for inclusion in the federal Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. I also want to point out that many of the state bills that have passed and been signed into law during the past two years, beginning in California, have included a number of explicitly stated exceptions to the requirement for the use of safer medical devices. The lack of explicitly stated exceptions in this legislation may cause some concern for those upon first review. I emphasize there should be no cause for concern. The current Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, which we are revising through this legislation, does not contain explicitly stated exceptions. Therefore, all of the traditional defenses, including affirmative defenses available to an employer related to the use of engineering controls under the current Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, remain in effect even as to the use of safer medical devices. I would point out also that the requirement in this legislation for the consideration and implementation of safer medical devices is hinged upon the ``appropriateness'' and the ``commercial availability'' of such devices. Finally, while this may be stating the obvious, it is not the intent of this legislation, nor for that matter of the current Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, for employers to implement use of any engineering control, including a safer medical device, in any situation where it may jeopardize a patient's safety, an employee's safety or where it may be medically contraindicated. Finally, I would like to commend the many groups who have worked so diligently on this issue over the past few years and worked so hard to reduce sharps injuries for health care workers. The broad consensus we have reached on this issue is due in no small part to the work of the American Nurses Association, the American Hospital Association, manufacturers and many others who represent health care workers. I especially want to thank Karen Daley, who testified at the hearing in June about her personal experience on behalf of the American Nurses Association. More than 8 million health care workers in the United States work in hospitals and other health care settings. I urge my colleagues to support the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, which is designed to make their work places safer.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the impact that cancer has on the American public. Sadly, we often do not realize the severity of childhood cancer. Today alone, 46 children will be diagnosed with cancer. But even more disturbing is that only two-thirds of those with cancer will survive. Childhood cancer was recently brought to my attention when Kimberly Davies, the daughter of a member of my Washington staff, was diagnosed with CML leukemia at the age of 7. Kimberly is doing well and continues to fight this dreaded disease. Kimberly is lucky, she has a bone marrow match through her sisters. However, most children are forced to wait and look nationally for bone marrow donors. This process can be extremely long and terribly uncertain. The prognosis for Kimberly is positive. However, without the constant research and new methods of treatment, Kimberly's outlook may not have been so good. Cancer is not a disease which only affects adults. Cancer affects children, too. It is important that Americans are aware of this and work to prevent and cure all forms of cancer. In Congress, it is important that we continue to fund children's cancer research. Every day, science inches closer to finding a cure. Let us not hold back now. I urge my colleagues to support the funding of child cancer research this year and in the years to come.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Gore made a promise to the AFL-CIO that he would keep Federal contracts from companies the unions did not like. This ``blacklist'' would be created under the proposed rules the administration released late last month and would allow unions to punish companies by holding hostage the yearly pool of $200 billion in Federal contracts. Mr. Gore's ``blacklisting'' regulations kick in far too easily. Under the proposed rule, all it takes for a contractor to be denied a contract is one adverse decision by an administrative law judge. Mr. Speaker, when the Vice President got caught making questionable phone calls for campaign cash, his defense was that there was not any controlling legal authority. Well, Mr. Vice President, administrative law judges' decisions are not ``controlling legal authority'' either. Their decisions are often overturned by agencies and by the Federal courts. In fact, a court recently overruled an ALJ and the board held that a company could lawfully fire a worker who sabotaged a company's repair work. If Mr. Gore is going to try to punish honest companies and their hard-working employees, let him at least do it upon ``controlling legal authority.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I speak as one of the proud 50 percent of this body that was a member of the Boy Scouts. Mr. Speaker, the Boy Scouts are a private organization with a long- standing reputation protected by the first amendment. Now, despite the Supreme Court endorsement of its mission, we are engaged in a politically motivated attempt to attack a great organization. The Boy Scouts bylaws state that one of the purposes of the organization is to teach morals to young men and boys and to help develop a strong group of core values. For years, this has been a great success. Now it seems that some in Congress want to legislate what these core values should be. Obviously, core values taught in Scouting today were seen to be fit when Boy Scouts were granted their first Federal charter and have remained the same unchanged since then. So why is this an attack? The Boy Scouts engage in hundreds of projects of good works across the country, and I think we should leave the seal of approval on this organization as American as apple pie and baseball; and I recommend a vote against this bill.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act. However, I would like to first say a couple things about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling). In all my years in Congress, I sincerely believe that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is the most knowledgeable person on the issue of education. Before coming to Congress, the gentleman from Pennsylvania was a teacher, a principal, and superintendent. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) knows education. We in Congress have been fortunate to have him. It is safe to say that we will miss the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), his bipartisan spirit, and his passion for better education of all Americans. I think the respect for his leadership is shown by the number of the committee members that are here tonight at this late hour. Back in 1988, when we served together on the Committee on Education and the Workforce as minority Members, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) worked tirelessly to enact the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Even Start is based on his experience as an educator and his belief that illiteracy can most successfully be eliminated by working with families. Even Start works with the adults without a GED and high school diploma and their children to break the cycles of illiteracy. This program has been successful in motivating and providing parents with the skills they need to play an active role in their children's education. Today we have an opportunity to enhance this act and substantially increase the funding authorization to $250 million for fiscal year 2001. This is a program that works. Not only does it increase literacy and active participation by parents in their children's education, but it provides enhanced opportunities for parents as well. The bill epitomizes everything that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has represented during his tenure in Congress. It increases charitable choice, strengthens accountability, ensures instruction is based on scientifically based research, it prevents waste, and actively increases parental involvement in education. This is a program that helps everyone who is involved. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3222 and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) in his efforts on behalf of American families.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, author Pearl S. Buck once wrote, ``Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or to be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.'' Yet our Nation's tax policies do desert the elderly. The IRS bureaucrats tax seniors who work, scrimp, and save all their lives to build a business or a family farm. Their property and profits are taxed yearly. They even pay taxes on their employees. And what is the result? Upon the death of the owner, a successful business is hit with a death tax of up to 55 percent of the business' worth. Most family businesses cannot survive such crippling taxes, and families are forced to sell. The death tax is uncivilized. Let us override the Clinton veto of the death tax.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland for yielding me time, and also thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) for allowing me to be one of the cosponsors to bring this bill to the floor to name a post office after Jim Broyhill. Jim and I have been friends for years. He was in Congress, from 1962 to 1986, and during those times he was sometimes unopposed. I can remember one time, because he was so strong in the Republican Party, when things got bad, we needed somebody to run against Jim Broyhill so that he would campaign. I do not say I did this, but I was accused of it, in fact he was unopposed until about 3 weeks before the election, and some strange, kind of a, I want to say some sort of a nut from Western North Carolina, filed against him. Jim Broyhill called me up on the telephone and said, ``Cass, you paid that guy to run against me.'' I would like to tell Jim right here and now I did not do that, but I thought it was a wonderful idea for whoever did do it. Another thing about Jim Broyhill, it was his unbelievable memory of people. I have campaigned with him many times, and he would walk up to what I would consider a complete stranger and say, ``Madam, how is your husband after his operation?'' First of all, he knew her name, and, second of all, there was an operation, and, third, two years before is when this all happened. Yet he remembered all these things. He was the most exceptional politician I ever saw in the fact that he was close to the people and they knew it, and he did a wonderful job. Madam Speaker, everybody said how he was a ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the present ranking member, a Democrat, we will not mention names, has said to me many times that he was probably the most reasonable Republican he ever saw to work with. That was Jim's way of doing things. He was just a person more dedicated to getting something done than playing politics. As one might gather, I have a special reason to honor Jim Broyhill, for it was Jim's appointment to the Senate which first allowed me to run for Congress representing the people of the 10th District of North Carolina. Many of you may know Jim Broyhill for his distinguished record of public service. He is a great friend of mine and has helped me in every election since 1986. Let me just say, Western North Carolina has been greatly rewarded by both Jim and his family.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, nothing we do here in Congress can be accomplished alone. Today I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked to make the 106th Congress' record one of accomplishment and not of partisan gridlock. This Congress has passed some of the most solid education reform ever brought before this body, measures that will give parents and teachers more flexibility to meet students' unique needs. But that is not all. We have also worked tirelessly to pay off our national public debt, which is saddling children born this year with a $13,300 debt burden. Our debt relief measure also saves the average household an estimated $4,000 in interest payments over the next 10 years. Think of what American families can do with that $4,000 in additional income. The 106th Congress has an agenda for success, and I am proud to be part of it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that an education is the best provision for old age. Without an education, a person's options and their potential for growth are severely limited. Nowhere is this philosophy more accurate than in America, where even many entry-level jobs require a college degree. Unfortunately, America's public education system has been failing thousands of American students. Many of our schools are struggling just to provide the basic tools of modern education demands, computers, updated textbooks and evenly qualified teachers. Republicans are working to solve these problems. We passed legislation that gives States maximum flexibility in how they use Federal education dollars. We also passed measures to help improve teacher quality and reduce class size, and we passed legislation to improve education opportunities for disabled students. Republicans are making education a top priority and our children deserve no less.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, when the American people talk, Congress listen. Thousands of our Nation's seniors asked for relief from rising prescription drug prices. We worked to create a bipartisan plan that is voluntary, affordable, and available to all. We passed it through the House. When married couples came to us in droves, shocked by the fact that the Federal government taxes them at a greater rate, we did something about it. The House passed legislation earlier this year, and will pass it again tomorrow, to lessen the impact of the marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction for married couples, expanding the 15 percent tax bracket for joint filers, and increasing the earned income tax credit. When small business owners and family farmers from Oregon to North Carolina came to us and asked for relief from the devastating inheritance tax, we began efforts to repeal it. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to providing relief to the American people.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Mark Twain once said, ``Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.'' Well, in a similar sense, the Clinton-Gore administration often pledges to support education, but does nothing to back up their rhetoric. In contrast, the House Republicans have made education improvements one of our top priorities, and we are seeing results. We passed bipartisan measures to give local school districts more flexibility with education dollars, providing parents and teachers a voice in where their children's education funds are spent. Our Teacher Empowerment Act helps teachers enhance their training and addresses teacher shortages by increasing recruitment and retention. Every student deserves to have qualified teachers. Republicans have also led the charge for full Federal funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, giving disabled students access to the best possible education. Our children deserve quality education, and Republicans are making it happen.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I have been wrestling with the phrase of ``a do-nothing Congress.'' If by ``doing nothing'' the Democrats mean that we are protecting the social security trust fund from being raided to pay for other big government programs, then they are right. Or if they mean we have stopped racking up the national debt and borrowing money from our children, yes, I guess they are right there, too. If they call us ``the do-nothing'' Congress because we have worked to lower taxes on married couples and our Nation's seniors, then I guess they are right there. But if the Democrats' best argument for saying that we do not do anything is that we have worked to restrain Federal spending, to protect the retirement security for seniors, stop increasing taxes on hard-working Americans, then I am willing to take that as a compliment from my friends on the other side.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I regret that I missed Rollcall votes 373, 374, 375 and 376 to the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 4461). My flight from Charlotte was delayed due to threatening weather.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).