Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, it has been said that the time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining. Our economy is shining brightly, and it is time to fix much of the unfairness in our Tax Code. Right now our government unfairly punishes working seniors through the social security earnings limit. Americans have a strong work ethic. We have a strong desire to contribute to our surroundings. Yet, after the age of 65, our government punishes senior citizens who wish to stay in the work force. Social security was designed to give some protection to senior citizens. It was not designed to be a program that would punish those who chose to keep working past the age of 65. Right now in this country more than 800,000 working senior citizens lose part or all of their social security benefits because of this earnings limit. This is ridiculous. This week the Republicans in the House will bring up a bill that would repeal the social security earnings limit, and I hope the President will sign it. The time has come to give working seniors a break and repeal the social security earnings limit.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1749, to designate Wilson Creek in my congressional district as a Wild and Scenic River. And I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage), chairwoman of the subcommittee, for their support of this bill and their diligent efforts to get this bill to the floor. Madam Speaker, I would like to invite any of my colleagues from Congress that get to our area, if they want to see something fabulously beautiful, look at the Wilson Creek. Wilson Creek is a free-flowing, crystal clear waterway which passes through some of the most beautiful scenery in the Nation. It provides pristine habitat for a multitude of fish species and plant life which live within the creek and along its banks. From its headwaters below Calloway Peak on Grandfather Mountain in Avery County, to where it empties into Johns River in Caldwell County, Wilson Creek meets and exceeds all the requirements for such an important designation. Specifically, my bill would designate 23.3 miles of Wilson Creek as a Wild and Scenic River. And in my opinion, having this creek designated as Wild and Scenic would help maintain its natural beauty while helping to improve the quality of recreational opportunities like hunting, fishing, camping, canoeing, and other activities for thousands of people who visit it each year. Madam Speaker, the potential designation of Wilson Creek as a Wild and Scenic River has received tremendous support from the County Commissioners of both Avery and Caldwell Counties, as well as the local residents and outdoor enthusiasts. In fact, when I met with the County Commissioner in Caldwell and Avery Counties prior to the introduction of my bill, I was presented with letters of support from local residents, positive newspaper articles and editorials, and a letter from the U.S. Forest Service which indicated a willingness to help us in this effort. Madam Speaker, I am convinced that the designation of Wilson Creek as a Wild and Scenic River is well supported within the communities which surround it. I know CBO is trying to find some cost for it. They have not been able to. There is no expense. And I believe this is an excellent bill that would do much to preserve Wilson Creek, making it both a natural asset and a natural treasure, and I urge its passage.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that a popular tax relief proposal, the so-called marriage tax penalty relief bill, is coming up for a vote today. Unlike President Clinton, I believe that we can achieve our budget and tax objectives simultaneously in this booming economy. If we keep reigning in new federal spending and waste, fraud and abuse in existing programs, we can provide this long overdue tax relief--and more--while protecting Social Security, Medicare and retiring the public debt. H.R. 6 is needed to make a down payment on eliminating the marriage tax penalty which roughly 67,439 couples in my congressional district alone pay Uncle Sam each year. A marriage tax penalty happens when a married couple pays more taxes by filing jointly than they would if each spouse could file as a single person. The bottom line is that the tax code punishes millions of couples by pushing them into higher tax brackets, and middle income American families are hit the hardest. Why should a man and a woman be forced to pay higher taxes simply for being married? Since President Clinton vetoed the marriage tax penalty relief package last fall, I am glad that we have started this process early this year in the hope we can get a bill which President Clinton will sign. After all, just two weeks ago he said he favored marriage tax penalty relief. He should work with us to give hardworking Americans a break.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the President is joining our tax relief debate. Just last year the President vetoed our marriage tax relief plan. This year he thinks our idea is so great he has come up with his own proposal. Unfortunately, his plan misses the mark. The President's plan would only affect a fraction of the 28 million couples helped by the Republican plan and would only save couples a meager $210 a year. Come on, Mr. President. The American people deserve better. On the other hand, the Republican plan would have provided married couples up to $1,400 in tax relief. Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks the House will consider a marriage tax fix even better than our proposal last year. I urge the President to join us this year to pass meaningful marriage tax relief. American couples deserve it, and it is the fair thing to do.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, we all know President Clinton is coming to this Chamber tonight to deliver his last State of the Union address. As we all await with great anticipation what he will say and what he will propose, I would like to mention a few items I hope he will emphasize. The House Republican leadership wrote to the President this week asking that he discuss three specific initiatives. I would like to echo their call to the President to, first, join us in protecting 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund; second, detail how he will pay off the public debt by 2013; and, third, sign meaningful and responsible tax fairness into law and do not propose higher taxes or more burdensome user fees. If the President can address these items and resist the temptation to propose new spending programs that increase the size and scope of the Federal Government, then his speech will be well received by Congress. Tonight is a major opportunity for cooperation, not confrontation. I hope the President will work with us this year on behalf of the American people and put aside partisan differences.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, this is the headline in the New York Daily News on Monday: the headline says, Not Fit to Teach Your Kid. In some city schools, 50 percent of the teachers in New York are uncertified. Well, we can help the City of New York if we gave them the flexibility that is in the House-passed Teacher Empowerment Act so that they can properly prepare some of the existing teachers they have; so that they can raise the academic achievement level of all of their students.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, bad habits are hard to break, especially when those habits are 30 years old. Maybe it should not surprise me that the Washington big spenders who have raided the social security trust fund for the last 30 years are having trouble kicking that habit. But just because it is not surprising does not mean that it is okay. It is not okay to raid the social security trust fund and use the money for other governmental programs. It is not okay to jeopardize the retirement security of millions of hard-working Americans. While I am not surprised that President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress are having such trouble kicking this bad habit, I am disappointed by it. But we Republicans will stand firm. We have stopped the social security raid. We have passed a bill that protects the retirement money of America's working men and women, and at the same time we are rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in Washington bureaucracy. We are making Washington kick two bad habits at once. That is what I call good government.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, October 31, 1999, the first three of six of the long awaited Blackhawk helicopters crossed into Colombian airspace, returning from extensive training in the U.S. The choppers were later received by the Director General, the legendary drug fighter Jose Serrano and his anti-drug unit at their air base near Bogota, where they train drug fighting pilots from all across Latin America. After years of waiting for the Clinton administration to get off the dime and help our beleaguered neighbor just 3 hours from Miami, which produces 80 percent of the world's cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin sold in the United States, the GOP-led anti-drug package from last year finally arrived.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent government audit, Federal agencies were unable to account for over 800 billion in Federal assets. My colleagues heard me right, $800 billion. That would have to be a pretty big lost and found for all of that missing stuff, but in reality there is no Federal lost and found; and I am betting all that property is lost for good, Mr. Speaker. That is a disgrace, and what makes it even worse and even more disgraceful is that $800 billion, that could have been used to strengthen Social Security. While the Federal Government was losing all that property, it was raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to keep growing the size of government without increase in the accountability for how the taxpayers' money was spent. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress is telling the President and the Democrat leadership that it is time to stop the raid, and we are asking them to join us in setting aside one penny of every Federal dollar to strengthen Social Security for the American people. It is our plan, it is fair, and it is responsible, and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, if you turn on the television networks tonight, you will see a new broadcast season under way. There are new shows and new stars on old shows. TV fans had a long wait for a new season, more than 4 months of summer reruns. American seniors have had a long wait as well, a long wait for Congress to implement the lockbox protection for their Social Security. This body passed the lockbox bill on May 26, 153 days ago. Since that time, the other body has failed to act. Every attempt to bring the Social Security lockbox up for a vote has fallen victim to a filibuster threat. For 140 days, the minority party in the other body has held the lockbox bill hostage. That is long enough. This year's fight to stop the raid on Social Security proves our seniors need and deserve lockbox protection for their Social Security. Let us free the Social Security lockbox bill. One hundred forty days held hostage is long enough.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall votes 533, 534, 535, and 536 last night, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I have a longstanding interest in the growth and prosperity of one of our most important Central American neighbors, the Republic of El Salvador. Today, I would like to recognize the impressive privatization process that is going on in El Salvador, with a particular emphasis on the country's successful privatization program. El Salvador embarked on a major program to privatize the key national industries nearly a decade ago. Since that time, the state electric company known as CEL, for Comision Hidrolectrica del Rio Lempa, has been a consistent leader in the country's privatization process. In 1998, CEL auctioned off 75 percent of the shares of four state- owned electrical distribution companies for more than $586 million, representing the most money earned to date in any privatization in the region. One of the three winning bidders in this sale was a well-known Arlington, Virginia, based energy firm called AES Corporation. Last June, this successful privatization program continued with CEL auctioning off the majority shares in three state-owned thermal generation facilities, Acajutla, Soyapango, and San Miguel, to private investors. The winning bid in this sale, $125 million, came from another well-known company in the U.S., Duke Energy, which is based in my home State of North Carolina. As I speak, Duke is already making plans to invest more than $75 million in upgrades to these facilities. The most recent sale represents a win/win situation for both El Salvador and the U.S. This investment will not only mean more jobs and more income for people in North Carolina, but will also mean more consistent, cost effective energy for people of El Salvador. El Salvador's privatization process, which also includes the state telephone company and pension plan, has been successful because political parties and labor unions put aside their differences and decided to work together to lead the country into a bright and secure economic future. This unity and sense of purpose is proof positive that El Salvador has indeed come a long way since the war-torn 1980s. Other countries in the region, and beyond, should be encouraged to follow in the footsteps of El Salvador. In closing, I would like to extend our best wishes to El Salvador for a job well done, as well as wish the country, and particularly President Francisco Flores, continued success in the drive to privatize and bring increased prosperity to the people of El Salvador.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, every American child deserves a secure future, and the path to the secure future is a good education. But too many of our Nation's most disadvantaged children are having their hopes and dreams dashed by failing schools. It is time for a new approach. It is time to give these kids a chance to get out of the schools that are not working and get into ones that are. And it is time to recognize that no matter how much money we spend, our Nation's worst schools will never meet their responsibility to the students as long as the Federal Government ensnares those schools in red tape. The Democrat solution is to keep spending more and more money on a failing system. The Republican solution is, spend the money, yes, but to reform the system as well. In the coming weeks, the House will have the opportunity to rekindle the flame of hope for those children whose only hope lies within the schoolhouse walls, and I hope we will do it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey amendment. As a colleague of mine from across the aisle stated last night, ``we must provide opportunity early and often to the youth of America.'' I agree with my colleague and that is why I support this amendment. Many students who attend schools receiving Title I funding have been failed by our education system time and time again. Let us give them opportunities early and often to receive a better education and prepare for a better life. The Armey amendment simply establishes an optional nationwide pilot program that provides relief for students who attend a Title I school that is designated as ``failing'' or ``unsafe'' and allows them to receive up to $3,500 in scholarship to attend a public, private or parochial school in their state. As school violence continues to escalate and hamper the education of the American youth, let us take the power out of the violent offender's hands and place it in the hands of the students and parents. Children have the right to feel safe and parents should have the right to choose the education of their children. Mr. Chairman, Title I has failed these students. Let us not fail these children again. Give students who attend Title I schools that are deemed ``failing'' or ``unsafe'' by their state the opportunity to grow and learn in a safe, successful environment. I urge my colleagues to support the Armey amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all I would like to say that having read the information on the Mink amendment I am not necessarily for it, because it says in our description here, it is to identify and eliminate gender and racial bias in instruction materials, methods and practices. To me that sounds like building a whole new bureaucracy in the educational vein. I am not sure that Title I does not have enough problems already. In the past, Title I funding has seen few results. However, H.R. 2, the Student Results Act of 1999, has strong accountability measures to ensure that these Federal funds are spent in the appropriate manner, on low-achieving, disadvantaged students of both sexes. It is important to let schools know that if we are going to give you Federal funding, we expect results. This bipartisan bill creates the academic State reports which show the academic performance of all schools receiving Title I funding, allowing parents and local leaders to monitor the progress of these schools. H.R. 2 also allows students in low performing schools to have the choice of transferring to a public school or to a public charter school that is not low performing. Accountability does not stop there. This bill requires that within 3 years of enactment, paraprofessionals, or teachers aides, as they say, at schools receiving Title I funding have to complete at least 2 years of study in an institution of higher learning, obtain an associate's degree or higher and meet rigorous standards of quality set by the local school district in math, reading and writing. You cannot really help low achieving students with unqualified teachers aides. These students need the best of the profession to move out of their low achieving status. In the past, this teaching effort was largely done by 75,000 teachers aides. With the additional training, we could almost reach the President's requested 100,000 more teachers with less money and the need to hire fewer teachers. This higher standard will ensure that our Federal funding is used in providing a higher quality of education to our youth, especially since 95 percent of the money must go to the classroom. We should not use Title I funding again to go to students who have already been failed by the educational system before. Let us support H.R. 2.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, let us talk education. We can all agree on the need to spend money on our public schools. And I hope we can also agree that America's parents have not been getting their money's worth. Student achievements continues to lag even as spending rises. A lack of discipline plagues thousands of classrooms. School accountability to parents is sorely missing. Many teachers are not getting the training they need to teach their students what they need to know. So why do so many liberal Democrats continue to oppose real education reform? How can they say they want strong public schools while they vote for the very regulations that weaken public schools? These advocates of the status quo are defending the indefensible. They are trapping America's most disadvantaged children in a system that has failed them. And they are putting the future of millions of American children in jeopardy. It is long past time to fix the broken system. It is past time to try new ways of doing things, but it is not too late.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, after the Hurricane Andrew hit south Florida, President Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon law with regard to the clean-up and rehabilitation work receiving funds. President Clinton revoked that suspension when he got into office, so it never really was tested to see whether it would help get clean-up work done quicker and cheaper. I have been pushing President Clinton to waive the Davis-Bacon Act for clean-up efforts in Hurricane Floyd in my State of North Carolina and elsewhere and even sent him a letter signed by many Members of the House. Waiving Davis-Bacon would not only save scarce Federal resources, but it would also save time in getting contractors out and create job opportunities for those in need of work. Unfortunately, I do not think I am going to get this administration to agree with me, even though it could save our taxpayers millions of dollars.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from today's New York Times: ``Surplus social security funds have functioned as money under the mattress for Congress for four decades. When general government revenues to run the Federal agencies run out, Congress taps into the retirement funds. Some outside experts say that social security surpluses has had no effect on its benefits. ``Republicans have been vowing almost daily never again to spend the money. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert again promised today `never to return to the days when Democrats raided social security.' '' This is from the New York Times, of all things.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, first of all I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is important to realize what small businesses will do when they are faced with health care liability provided by the Norwood-Dingell bill. Let me show Members what increased liability will do to my own small company in North Carolina. We have 200 employees. We self-insure. Our health insurance expenses last year were a total of $700,000. Of this cost, the company voluntarily paid $550,000, or $2,750 per employee. For additional coverage, the employees collectively paid $150,000, or $750 per employee. Now, the $2,750 per employee expense covered by my company is a voluntary fringe benefit. Why would any company voluntarily give a fringe benefit that would expose them to the possibility of being sued? We can say that litigation is not likely but small business owners cannot afford to take that chance. With the specter of liability looming, it would make good business sense to give the employee a pay increase of $1.375 per hour, that is $2,750 spread over a year, give them $1.375 and advise each of them to get their own health insurance. This would leave my company free of liability. I guarantee that it would cost each employee substantially more to purchase insurance individually, and many employees would not use their wage increases for health insurance. As Members can see, the liability provisions of Norwood-Dingell will lead to a greater number of uninsured nationwide. Unlike the liability- ridden Norwood-Dingell bill, the Boehner substitute will ensure patients' rights without exposing employers to lawsuits for voluntarily providing health care to their employees. A strong, binding, independent external review process for health plans, with a fine of $5,000 a day for plans who refuse to adhere to the decision of the panel of doctors, will provide accountability to the millions of Americans in employer-based care. Do not jeopardize the employer-based health care system. Let the small businesses and employers continue to provide health care benefits to the American workforce. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boehner substitute and the 150 million people who have insurance coverage right now.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Hurricanes Floyd and Dennis have dealt a devastating blow to the residents along the Eastern Seaboard from Florida to North Carolina to New York. The flood waters have resulted in billions of dollars in damage and left thousands without homes. Last week, a number of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the President of the United States asking him to relax the Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements in order to facilitate repairs in the States hardest hit by the hurricanes. The Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors who work on Federal projects to use Federal dollars to pay certain prevailing wages. Economic studies believe that Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of construction projects up to an estimated 38 percent. Victims of the hurricanes should have the opportunity to use Federal disaster relief in local competitive markets to rebuild their homes and communities. In fact, under the Davis-Bacon Act, a man or woman who receives $2,500 of Federal disaster funding cannot use that relief to rebuild their own house themselves, but must pay the inflated prevailing wage to another contractor because of the use of Federal dollars.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2990, an important and timely bill designed to help the 44.3 million Americans who have no health insurance whatsoever. These Americans will find little comfort from our debate later today and tomorrow over improvements to managed care plans. H.R. 2990 offers something for them--that is, accessible, affordable and accountable health insurance coverage. This week, Congress and the American people learned from a Census Bureau report that the ranks of the uninsured has swelled by another one million. I support the efforts of the Republican leadership to give these uninsured Americans more choice in the health insurance market instead of expanding big government plans which President Clinton has embraced. To this end, H.R. 2990 contains important changes in the tax code which we have championed in earlier tax relief packages, including expanding Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). We have worked for years to convince President Clinton that expanded eligibility for MSAs is one solution to the problem of the uninsured. The facts are in: 42 percent of individuals purchasing MSAs this year were previously uninsured. In addition to the creation of association health plans and ``HealthMarts,'' H.R. 2990 also accelerates to 2001 the phase-in of the 100 percent deduction for the health insurance of the self-employed Americans. Last month, the President rejected an immediate 100 percent deduction of these costs when he vetoed the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. I believe we need to add common sense and tax relief to the health care access debate. H.R. 2990 does just that, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me talk a minute about the 125 million people who could lose their insurance. H.R. 2723, or Norwood-Dingell contains language that would expose employers to lawsuits for voluntarily providing health care benefits to their employees and thus jeopardize the employer-based health care system. The bill opens the flood gates for trial lawyers. It mandates greater cost and liability to employers of all sizes. Yet, defenders of this bill believe that employers would be shielded from liability unless they used discretionary authority on a benefit decision. However, what is discretionary authority? In reality, nearly any health care decision made by employers entails the use of discretionary authority. This open-ended term leaves trial lawyers drooling over the possibility of litigation and employers considering whether to pull the plug on the health care benefits. Trial lawyers will continually test the term ``discretionary authority'' in the courts, which will cost employers millions in the realm of attorneys and defense. An ad in today's Washington Post put it best. ``The patients' bill of rights is actually the lawyers' right to bill.'' When faced with the specter of liability and the ambiguous term ``discretionary authority,'' employers will opt to stop voluntarily offering health care and give employees the monetary equivalent. In a recent poll, 57 percent of small businesses said they would drop health care if faced with increased liability and cost. We do not need more litigation spurred on by greedy trial lawyers. We need health care reform that supports both patients and the employers who voluntarily provide these important benefits. The solution is not liability but accountability, and the Boehner substitute does just that. This substitute strengthens the internal and external review process and holds health care plans liable for up to $5,000 a day if the plan refuses to adhere to the decision of the review process. H.R. 2723 would jeopardize employer-based health care plans for over 120 million Americans. Support the Boehner substitute and let small businesses and employers continue to provide health care for the American workforce.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on September 23, 1999, on the first Lofgren motion (rollcall No. 438) to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999, I was recorded as voting ``yea'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Congress will soon consider the issue of employer liability in the concern with healthcare. As a small business owner myself with 200 employees, the decision is simple. If faced with the slimmest possibility of being sued for voluntarily providing health care to my employees, I will stop providing such benefits and give them the cash equivalent. I will not be alone. Recently a poll of small business owners found that 57 percent of small businesses would drop health care coverage for employees if employer liability was increased. This potentially could lead to the end of employer-based health care and leave tens of millions of people without health care coverage. H.R. 2926, the CARE Act, would ensure patients' rights without exposing employers to lawsuits for voluntarily providing health care and benefits to their employees. The CARE Act also allows small employers to band together to provide health care benefits for their employees by pooling their purchasing power in a new association health plan. This provision would create affordable access to health care for millions. Let small business and employers continue to provide health care benefits to the American workforce. Vote for 2926.