Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to restore a small measure of balance to the way military retired pay is handled during a divorce. Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, courts were given the authority to divide military retirement pay as property. This has resulted in certain injustices to many divorced military retirees. Chief among them is the fact that former spouses continue to receive a share of the retired pay even after one or more re- marriages--unlike other federal agency pensions, such as those of the CIA and Foreign Service, which terminate after a spouse remarries. Moreover, since there is no limitation on when former spouses can seek a division of retired pay, some former spouses seek this action many years after the divorce. My bill has four principal components addressing problems created by the original legislation. First, it would terminate payments made as a division of property from retired pay upon remarriage of the former spouse. Second, it would require computation of the former spouse's portion of retired pay based on the servicemember's rank and year of military service at the time of divorce, not at the time of retirement. Third, it would limit the period of time after divorce in which a former spouse may seek a division of retired pay. Fourth, it would protect any veterans' disability compensation from division with the former spouse, which was originally intended, but has either been circumvented or ignored. I urge my colleagues to join me in seeking equity for military retirees by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for all their hard work. Their leadership and willingness to work in cooperation is to be commended. When I look at H.R. 1, I see a bill which will truly reform the way Federal dollars are spent on education. This legislation puts the decision-making in the hands of local teachers and parents, not Washington bureaucrats. Often, we in Congress let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Does this bill have everything we conservatives want? No. Does this bill have everything liberals want? No. Does H.R. 1 have concrete reforms which will give States and local schools the resources they need to better educate our youth? Absolutely. H.R. 1 is the President's plan. It allows for local flexibility with greater accountability. It also provides a safety valve for children trapped in failing schools by providing immediate public school choice. We should also note that public school choice would be the option after just 1 year in a failing school and not 3 years, as originally proposed. Now, I know many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe H.R. 1 does not live up to the President's plan. I understand that private school choice is an issue which is a sticking point, and I also support private school choice. However, I ask that we look at the reforms this bill does provide and not what it does not. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. H.R. 1 allows public school choice. It allows children in failing schools to obtain tutoring by private or religiously-affiliated educators. It allows local schools to transfer up to 50 percent of their Federal funding to programs that they believe are best for their needs. These are major reforms which cannot be overlooked. These are the most sweeping changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since its enactment, and we cannot forget this. Also, just a few minutes ago, the Assistant Secretary told me that my conservative friends should remember that the management of the Department has changed, and their ideas will have some influence there. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the overarching goal of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, is to narrow the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers. The bill takes a two-track approach, expanding flexibility for States and local school districts while holding them strictly accountable for increasing student achievement. The No Child Left Behind plan will tie Federal funding to results for the first time in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that was enacted in 1965. Since then, the Federal Government has spent more than $130 billion, including more than $80 billion in the last 10 years, and created more than 50 programs on the landmark Title I program to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers. Today the gap remains wide, and in some cases it is getting wider. We cannot keep perpetuating a system that accepts such mediocrity, not at the expense of our least fortunate children. One feature of accountability in H.R. 1 is a plan to help low performing schools, a designation that will be made by the States, to improve their performance. The bill increases the set-asides for States' school improvement funding to 5 percent. Let us please support the No Child Left Behind bill.

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, children should not be trapped in failing schools where they cannot possibly reach their fullest educational potential. That is why H.R. 1 includes a school choice program that enables parents to remove their children from schools that, as President Bush says, do not teach and will not change. Before giving parents the option of sending their children to another school, H.R. 1 gives low-performing schools the chance to improve by offering them financial assistance to increase student achievement. If these schools do not make adequate progress after 2 years, parents will be able to send their children to another public school. After 3 years of chronic failure, disadvantaged students will be eligible for private school scholarships. H.R. 1, it should be noted, aims to bolster failing public schools by giving them special financial help. But more funding cannot be the final remedy. There must be a safety valve that allows children to escape continually low-performing schools. It goes without saying that we are all committed to improving the quality of our Nation's schools; but first and foremost, students themselves should be our most pressing concern. And it is our responsibility to empower parents to make the right decision for their children's future.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to say that myself and the other two Members that have spoken on this side of the aisle all joined World War II when we were 17 years old. My wife and I have read on a daily basis the number of World War II veterans that are dying at the rate of 1,000 a day; and those that do not believe that, just look at the obituary columns in the newspaper. Let me cite some of the reasons people give for not building this wonderful building. Critics claim that the memorial was approved behind closed doors by a small group of individuals without regard to the law. That is not true. Critics claim that the memorial would desecrate grounds made sacred by the civil rights movement and would greatly impede and prevent future public gatherings and marches in the vicinity of Washington and Lincoln. That is not true. Critics claim that the memorial will block the mall's open space between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, inhibiting pedestrians from walking through this part of the mall. That is not true. The design allows open flow of visitors between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. Critics claim that the memorial would destroy the historic Rainbow Pool. That is not true. The Rainbow Pool will be lowered and rebuilt in its historic configuration. The pool's waterworks, which have not functioned for decades, will be restored to their original splendor. The Rainbow Pool will earn greater historic significance as the centerpiece of the only memorial to a 20th century event commemorated on the main axis of the mall. Critics claim that the design echoes the Nazi Fascist architectural language of triumph and public spectacle. That is not true. Critics claim that the World War II memorial is being built on ground that is part of the Lincoln Memorial, and that is not true. I say to my colleagues, there are millions of reasons why this should be done, but every day there are fewer and fewer of us around that really can deliver the purpose that these people died for. I would like to say we have waited long enough. It is time that we pass this bill. Let us vote for it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Catawba Memorial Hospital, a health care facility in my district that for years has provided first-rate care to those in need. Nearly forty years ago, I joined a number of business, civic and community leaders for the groundbreaking of Catawba Memorial Hospital. Since then, my wife and I have maintained close involvement with the hospital for a number of years. During this time, we've both watched as Catawba Memorial has grown in size and prominence in the health care community. Much to my expectation and pleasure, Catawba Memorial Hospital has gone on to become one of the region's leading health care facilities. Aside from merely wanting to heap praise on a hospital that clearly deserves it, I also rise today, Mr. Speaker, to commend Catawba Memorial Hospital for its recent designation as a Magnate Hospital by the American Nurses Credentialing Center. Catawba Memorial is only the 32nd hospital in the nation to receive this prestigious award. It was chosen for Magnet Hospital designation for its excellence in nursing services. Although I'm certainly not surprised that Catawba Memorial was singled out for such a distinction, I am pleased nonetheless to congratulate Catawba Memorial Hospital's doctors, nurses, and staff for their tremendous achievement. We are indeed fortunate to have such a distinguished facility in the 10th District of North Carolina.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 117) expressing sympathy to the family, friends, and coworkers of Veronica ``Roni'' Bowers and Charity Bowers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on April 20, 2001, a Peruvian fighter jet mistakenly shot down a small seaplane carrying Baptist missionaries from Muskegon, Michigan, over the jungles of Peru. Believing that the small plane was engaged in drug trafficking, the Peruvian pilot attacked this small aircraft, killing two of its passengers, a mother and her infant daughter, and severely wounding the pilot. As you may know, Roni Bowers, her husband James, their 6-year-old son Cory and 7-month-old adopted daughter Charity were flying aboard the seaplane when it was intercepted and attacked by the Peruvian fighter. The aircraft, owned by the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, was en route to Iquitos, Peru to acquire visa documents for newly adopted Charity. Although severely wounded in the attack, pilot Kevin Donaldson was able to land the plane safely. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Roni and Charity Bowers were killed in the burst of gunfire. James and Cory Bowers escaped serious injury in the incident. An investigation into this matter is now underway. H. Con. Res. 117 expresses Congress' deepest and most heartfelt sympathy to James and Cory Bowers, their extended family, and to their friends and fellow missionaries. It commends wounded pilot Kevin Donaldson for his bravery and skill in safely landing his crippled aircraft and wishes him a speedy recovery. Finally, it calls on the Governments of the United States and Peru to undertake a cooperative and thorough investigation into this incident to ensure that similar incidents will be avoided in the future. I want to commend my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, for this timely and important resolution and I join him in extending my personal condolences to the Bowers family. I urge my colleagues to support this passage.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 117.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the ``The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act'' which will help workers to share, financially, when their efforts help produce gains for their company in productivity, sales, fewer injuries, or other aspects of performance. The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to specify that an hourly employee's regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime would not be affected by additional payments that reward or provide incentives to employees who meet productivity, quality, efficiency or sales goals. By eliminating disincentives in current law, this legislation will encourage employers to reward their employees and make it easier for employers to ``share the wealth'' with their employees. The pressures of worldwide competition and rapid technological change have forced most employers to seek continuous improvement in productivity, quality, and other aspects of company performance. Employers often seek to encourage and reward employee efforts to improve productivity, quality, etc. through what are called ``gainsharing'' plans--linking additional compensation to measurable improvements in company, team, or individual performance. Employees are assigned individual or group productivity goals and the savings achieved from improved productivity, or the gains, are then shared between the company and the employees. The payouts are based directly on factors under an employee's control, such as productivity or costs, rather than on the company's profits. Thus employees directly benefit from improvements that they help to produce by increasing their overall compensation. Unfortunately, employers who choose to implement such programs for their hourly employees can be burdened with unpredictable and complex requirements by the FLSA, which clearly did not envision these types of ``pay based on performance'' plans. For example, if a bonus is based on production, performance, or other factors, the payment must be divided by the number of hours worked by the non-exempt employee during the time period that the bonus is meant to cover, and added to the employee's regular hourly pay rate. This adjusted hourly rate must then be used to recalculate the employee's overtime rate of pay. The employer is then responsible to pay the difference between the old overtime pay rate and the new recalculated overtime pay rate. For other types of employees, such as executive, administrative, or professional employees who are exempt from minimum wage and overtime, an employer can easily give financial rewards without having to recalculate rates of pay. Simply put, this legislation would amend the FLSA to allow employers to give non-exempt hourly employees gainsharing or performance bonuses without making employers go through the cost of recalculating hourly and overtime pay. This would give hourly non-exempt employees the same access to bonuses and gainsharing programs that exempt employees receive. Performance bonuses and gainsharing programs are a way for employees to share in the success of the company they work for. Whether exempt or non-exempt, all employees should have the same opportunity to receive bonuses for their hard work.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the ``The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act'' which will help workers to share, financially, when their efforts help produce gains for their company in productivity, sales, fewer injuries, or other aspects of performance. The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to specify that an hourly employee's regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime would not be affected by additional payments that reward or provide incentives to employees who meet productivity, quality, efficiency or sales goals. By eliminating disincentives in current law, this legislation will encourage employers to reward their employees and make it easier for employers to ``share the wealth'' with their employees. The pressures of worldwide competition and rapid technological change have forced most employers to seek continuous improvement in productivity, quality, and other aspects of company performance. Employers often seek to encourage and reward employee efforts to improve productivity, quality, etc. through what are called ``gainsharing'' plans--linking additional compensation to measurable improvements in company, team, or individual performance. Employees are assigned individual or group productivity goals and the savings achieved from improved productivity, or the gains, are then shared between the company and the employees. The payouts are based directly on factors under an employee's control, such as productivity or costs, rather than on the company's profits. Thus employees directly benefit from improvements that they help to produce by increasing their overall compensation. Unfortunately, employers who choose to implement such programs for their hourly employees can be burdened with unpredictable and complex requirements by the FLSA, which clearly did not envision these types of ``pay based on performance'' plans. For example, if a bonus is based on production, performance, or other factors, the payment must be divided by the number of hours worked by the non-exempt employee during the time period that the bonus is meant to cover, and added to the employee's regular hourly pay rate. This adjusted hourly rate must then be used to recalculate the employee's overtime rate of pay. The employer is then responsible to pay the difference between the old overtime pay rate and the new recalculated overtime pay rate. For other types of employees, such as executive, administrative, or professional employees who are exempt from minimum wage and overtime, an employer can easily give financial rewards without having to recalculate rates of pay. Simply put, this legislation would amend the FLSA to allow employers to give nonexempt hourly employees gainsharing, or performance bonuses without making employers go through the cost of recalculating hourly and overtime pay. This would give hourly non-exempt employees the same access to bonuses and gainsharing programs that exempt employees receive. Performance bonuses and gainsharing programs are a way for employees to share in the success of the company they work for. Whether exempt or non-exempt, all employees should have the same opportunity to receive bonuses for their hard work.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, performance bonuses and gainsharing programs are a way for employees to share in the success of a company that they work for. Whether exempt or nonexempt, all employees should have the same opportunity to receive bonuses for their hard work. For many employers, the administrative costs associated with operating bonus programs for their hourly employees often end up costing more than actual bonuses. Because of this, current law virtually ensures that employers exclude hourly workers from bonus programs. Today, I am reintroducing The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act, which will help workers to share when their efforts that they have produce gains for the company. This legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to specify that an hourly employee's regular rate of pay in calculating overtime would not be affected by additional payments that reward employees who meet certain goals. Simply put, this bill would give hourly nonexempt employees the same access to bonuses that are exempt from professional employees that they already receive, and I ask my colleagues to support The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution presently being considered.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 67) recognizing the importance of combatting tuberculosis on a worldwide basis, and acknowledging the severe impact that TB has on minority populations in the United States, as amended.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 67, introduced by our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), seeks to draw more attention at home and abroad to the growing threat posed by tuberculosis. This deadly disease not only poses a threat throughout the developing world, but also disproportionately afflicts minority and poor populations in the United States. Tragically, Madam Speaker, one-third of the world's population is infected with tuberculosis, a treatable and curable disease. Yet millions die from the disease because its victims lack education and an awareness about its deadly consequences on them or the meager resources needed for treatment. More alarming is the fact that between 10 million and 15 million Americans are infected with tuberculosis in the United States and thousands die of that disease each year. Madam Speaker, every 15 seconds a person is infected with the deadly tuberculosis virus; and as a consequence, more people will die of the disease this year than in any other year in history. It is also important to underscore that infectious diseases know no borders and that as a result of travel and commerce, more and more Americans, especially the poor and minorities, will become infected and die from this preventable disease. The global community worked collectively to eradicate smallpox and is working to rid the world of the polio virus. We can do the same with regard to tuberculosis. It is also possible to save lives by providing the poor and minorities in our own country as well as overseas with inexpensive tuberculosis treatment. Madam Speaker, this is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. By saving lives, we can increase the productivity and lessen the burden on our taxed health care systems, both in the United States and overseas. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is important for the Congress to pass H.R. 67 in order to recognize the challenge posed by the tuberculosis epidemic and to redouble our efforts to combat and eradicate this terrible and deadly disease. This is another example of how America can act globally to serve its own interests at home. I commend my colleagues for drafting this timely and important resolution, and I urge them to vote for its adoption. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters for the RECORD between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin): House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, March 19, 2001. Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I have received your letter concerning H. Res. 67, a resolution recognizing the importance of combating tuberculosis on a worldwide basis. It is our intention that the House consider this resolution on the suspension calendar. The Committee on Energy and Commerce was granted an additional referral on this resolution based on its jurisdiction over public health issues. We recognize your jurisdiction, and appreciate your willingness to waive your right to consider this resolution without waiving your jurisdiction over the general subject matter. As you have requested, I will include this exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of the resolution. I appreciate your assistance in getting this important legislation to the floor. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 41) expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquakes that struck El Salvador on January 13, 2001, and February 13, 2001, and supporting ongoing aid efforts.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 41.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley): House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, March 19, 2001. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Chairman: I have received your letter concerning H. Con. Res. 41, a resolution expressing sympathy for the victims of the earthquakes in El Salvador. It is our intention that the House consider this legislation on the suspension calendar. The Committee on Financial Services was granted an additional referral on this resolution based on its jurisdiction over international financial and monetary organizations. We recognize your jurisdiction, and appreciate your willingness to waive your right to consider this resolution without waiving your jurisdiction over the general subject matter. I will support the Speaker in naming members of your committee as conferees, should it get to conference. As you have requested, I will include this exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of the resolution. I appreciate your assistance in getting this important legislation to the floor. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and I commend him for this resolution.