Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I support giving all the help we can to poor, hungry children in America, but when the programs that are supposed to help children are wasting money instead, that is a problem. A recent review by the House Committee on the Budget found that the food stamp program made an estimated $1.4 billion in improper payments in 1998, because food stamps are like currency, they can be easily used for fraudulent purposes. For example, 14 members of an Indiana gang stole $728,000 worth of food stamps from four county welfare offices and proceeded to trade them for cocaine and explosives. In 1995 and 1996, a total of $8.5 million in food stamps were paid out to 26,000 dead people in four States. No one knows who cashed in the benefits. These are types of blatant fraud and abuse that hurt the children's food stamps that were designed to help and we need to do something about it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 429) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning the participation of the extremist FPO in the Government of Austria.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 429 was adopted by a voice vote by the Committee on International Relations. It places on the record the concern of the House about the inclusion of an extremist party in the government of Austria, formed at the beginning of the year. I believe this is a fair and a balanced measure and I ask my colleagues to adopt it and also, since the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) is not here, I would insert in the Record his statement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 H. Res. 429.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, last month the Democrats criticized our budget resolution with their standard risky rhetoric, claiming our budget would cause children to starve and deny health care for the elderly. Ironically, it is the irresponsible accounting of the Clinton- Gore administration that really puts our children and seniors at risk. In fiscal year 1997, the Clinton-Gore Agriculture Department wasted $1 billion in erroneous food stamp payments, money that could have fed 5 percent more of our Nation's impoverished children. In fiscal year 1998, Medicare wasted $12.6 billion in overpayments to health care providers, money that could have helped thousands of American seniors. And in 1995, the Veterans' Administration nonchalantly ignored nearly $12 million in benefits owed to the Veterans' Administration, even though many elderly American veterans are struggling to get by. It is time the American people learned the truth. The risky wasteful policies belong to the Clinton-Gore Democrats, not the Republicans.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join Senator McConnell and others in the introduction of ``The Worker Economic Opportunity Act,'' a bipartisan bill to protect stock option programs for rank-and-file employees. In a February 12, 1999, opinion letter that has only recently become widely publicized, the Department of Labor determined that under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, at least in some case, the profits from the exercise of stock options are part of an employee's ``regular rate'' of pay, and therefore must be taken into account in determining the employee's overtime rate of pay. While the opinion letter constitutes the agency's interpretation of the law based on the facts and circumstances of one particular case, the practical effect of the letter is to ``red flag'' other similar programs and cause widespread confusion about overtime liability among employers who provide stock options for their hourly or ``nonexempt'' employees. Stock option programs can be configured in a variety of ways and are referred to by different names, but all of the programs share similar objectives: to reward employees, provide ownership in the company, and to attract and retain a motivated work force. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections' hearing earlier this month, witnesses discussed how stock ownership programs are now available to more and more employees. In the past, such programs were used to reward executives, top management, and other key employees. However, there has been a dramatic increase in the past several years in the number of companies offering broad-based employee ownership plans to rank and file employees. A 1998 study by Hewitt & Associates found that over 66 percent of the companies surveyed gave options to some portion of their nonexecutive workforce. The National Center for Employee Ownership estimates that more than 6 million nonexecutives receive stock options. In the high- technology industry, some 55 percent of rank-and-file employees participate in employee ownership programs. I daresay that few employees who receive stock options from their employer consider the profit on those options to be part of their regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Yet the Department of Labor's interpretation of the law that says stock options may be part of the employee's ``regular rate,'' threatens to undermine the ability and the willingness of employers to make stock options available to their ``nonexempt'' employees. Ms. Abigail Rosa, an employee who testified at the hearing, expressed concern that DOL's interpretation of the law would force companies to do away with stock option programs for employees who are covered by overtime. The Worker Economic Opportunity Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to ensure that federal law does not end up discouraging the use of such programs or denying employee the opportunity to participate in the success of their company. The bill specifies that any value or income derived from a stock option, stock appreciation right or employee stock purchase plan would be exempt from an employee's regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime. Plans must meet the following requirements: a minimum 6-month vesting period between the grant of the option and its exercise by the employee; any discounts on stock option or stock appreciation rights may not exceed 15 percent of fair market value at the time of the grant; the voluntary exercise of any grant or right by the employee; and disclosure of the terms of the plan to employees. Employers may grant options based on employees' past performance, provided that the options are not pursuant to any prior contract. In addition, employers may grant options based on the future performance of any size facility, or a business unit or group consisting of at least 10 employees. Under the bill, employers who are currently operating plans would be protected from liability for overtime back pay if: the grants or rights were obtained prior to the bill's effective date; the grants or rights were issued to employees within a year after the bill's effective date under plans that must be modified through shareholder approval; or the plans are part of a collective bargaining agreement as of the bill's effective date. Finally, the provisions of the bill would go into effect 90 days after the date of enactment, giving employers time to complete pending grants. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the hard work and attention of many Senators and Members of the House on both sides of the aisle, as well as the Department of Labor. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, today, we have before us the very important Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. I say it is important because it would provide desperately needed disaster relief funds for those in my home state of North Carolina and others who have suffered the ravages of Hurricane Floyd. It also contains the Colombian aid package which will serve as a critical component in winning the war on drugs. As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, Congress approved some disaster relief funding last fall to help eastern North Carolina recover from the disaster left by Hurricane Floyd. But, if you also remember, that funding did not cover all of the outstanding needs. The FY 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act addresses some of the shortfalls by providing over $1 billion in emergency disaster assistance to areas ravaged by Hurricane Floyd, especially eastern North Carolina. For example, the emergency supplemental contains $81 million for the Commodity Credit Corporation, funding which was removed from last year's disaster bill despite the efforts of the North Carolina delegation to include it. The measure also would provide $77 million for the Farm Service Agency, $13 million for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, $37 million for the Coast Guard and $600 million for the Administration for Children and Families. While the measure will not cover all of the disaster relief needs, it will address some of the most pressing ones. So, I urge its passage. H.R. 3908 also contains $1.1 billion in aid to Colombia and other Andean countries, to stem the tide of illegal narcotics coming into this country. These funds would be used, among other things, purchase utility helicopters for the Colombian Army and the Colombian National Police and to help train two more anti-narcotic battalions for the Colombian Army. Other funds contained in the package will be used to establish alternative crops programs and other non-military drug reduction programs. Since Colombia is a hemispheric neighbor, what happens there can profoundly affect the way we live here. Let me share some statistics. Each year an estimated 14 metric tons of heroin and 357 metric tons of cocaine enter the United States. Of these amounts, 90% of the cocaine and 75% of the heroin originate in Colombia. Let's face it, illegal drugs are killing our kids at an alarming rate. Every year, we lose 52,000 young lives to drugs, nearly equal to the number of Americans killed in Vietnam over ten years. That means every day 143 of our young people will die from drug-related causes. In the time it takes us to debate this bill, 12 or more children will perish due to drug addiction. According to the U.S. Drug Czar, one of every two Americans kids will try illegal drugs by the time they reach the 12th grade. Many will become habitual users, leading to a life of crime or worse, a miserable, lonely death. This problem, Mr. Chairman, is staggering. In 1998, five million young people in this country required treatment for drug addiction, and nearly 600,000 required an emergency room visit. In the United States, there are 1.6 million drug-related arrests annually, and over half of our prison population committed drug-related crimes. Even more disturbing, while the average age for marijuana users is increasing, heroin abusers are getting younger. The cost of drug abuse to our society is estimated to be $110 billion per year, but it is much higher if measured in countless lives lost and young dreams broken. With our strong support and the financial assistance contained in this bill, Colombia can be successful in slowing the flow of drugs from their country to our school and communities. Failing to provide this important aid now may result in the loss of Colombia to the drug cartels, leaving them free to turn the once prosperous and democratic nation into a large narcotics nursery, laboratory and distribution center. Without this help, we will leave generations of Americans vulnerable to the hopelessness of drug addiction. We have worked hard to stop genocide in other countries Mr. Chairman, we now must stop this senseless slaughter of a generation of Americans. If we love our children, we must ensure that Colombia receives the help it needs. This bill will provide that help, and I strongly its passage.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, every American child has a right to a quality education. Yet our education system, as a whole, has been failing to deliver, particularly to minorities. For example, 63 percent of nonurban fourth graders can read at a basic level, while only 43 percent of urban fourth graders can meet the same standards. And the dropout rate for African American students is about 15 percent, while the Hispanic student dropout rate is between 30 and 35 percent. Republicans believe educational opportunities should be the same for all children regardless of race, religion, or economic background. That is why I support H.R. 7, the Education Savings and Excellence Act. This legislation helps parents put aside money tax free for their children's education. This money may be spent on tuition, a computer, or even a tutor. Best of all, 76 percent of all the children who will benefit from the ESAs currently attend public schools. Success in America begins in the classroom. Let us give all children an opportunity to achieve the American Dream. Let us pass H.R. 7.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I applaud my colleagues on the House Budget Committee for their hard work in crafting a fiscal year 2001 budget which all Americans can embrace today. Chairman Kasich has shown vision and leadership in guiding the Congress out of the Democrat-led forty year period of budget deficits and into the Republican era of budget surpluses. I also would like to give credit to Chairman Kasich for his efforts to publish a summary of where the federal government stands now on combating government waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. Sadly, this document (Reviving The Reform Agenda) shows how much reform is still needed in agencies and programs throughout the federal government from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to various federal housing programs. As a small businessman, I was appalled to read that the most recent audits (fiscal year 1998) showed six major agencies could not provide financial statements that reliably account for the hundreds of billions of dollars they spent. Put another way, these agencies failed to produce the kinds of financial records that the government requires of every private-sector company that trades its stock publicly. The Budget Committee majority staff point out that the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the inspectors general (IG) of the various agencies believe taxpayers' hard-earned dollars have been wasted and, as a result, beneficiaries of too many federal programs have been deprived of the funding which Congress intended them to receive. I believe it is important to point to Reviving The Reform Agenda in defense of Republicans' successful push last year for a 0.38 percent across-the-board cut in the fiscal year 2000 spending bills. And, today, as our colleagues across the aisle criticize the fiscal year 2001 Republican budget which will keep spending to about half the rate of inflation, we need to highlight the fact that government waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement still exists. Why should we ask our constituents to support the Clinton-Gore administration budget which calls for spending $1.3 trillion on bigger government over the next decade when we are having a hard time managing effectively current programs and spending levels? It is important to note that the fiscal year 2001 Republican budget proposal keeps a lid on runaway federal spending while devoting the entire Social Security surplus, totaling $166 billion in fiscal year 2001, to a lock box to prevent it from being used to finance other government programs. And, it proposes a $40 billion reserve fund to be used to reform Medicare and provide prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries who need it. In addition, the Republican budget proposal contains $150 billion in tax relief over five years, including the elimination of the marriage penalty. It also contains tax relief for small businesses, phases out the estate of ``death'' tax, establishes tax incentives for educational assistance and tax relief associated with pending health care reform legislation. Finally, I am pleased to report that the Republican budget increases spending for education, national defense, transportation and veterans programs. In response to many of my constituents; concerns, it also decreases foreign aid expenditures. I believe this budget does it all. I hope my Republican colleagues will continue to spearhead a campaign of reform, beginning with the adoption of the fiscally responsible Republican budget.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, each week that we delay the passage of the Colombia aid package costs America the lives of 1,000 of its children. That means every day we sit here and do nothing about the drug trade from Colombia, 143 of our young people will die from drug- related causes. In the time it takes us to debate and vote on the aid package, 12 children will succumb to drug addiction. In 1998, 5 million young people in this country required treatment for drug addiction, and nearly 600,000 required an emergency room visit. In the United States, there are 1.6 million drug-related arrests annually, and over half of our prison population has committed drug related crimes. Even more disturbing, while the average age of marijuana users is increasing, heroin abusers are getting younger. Seventy-five percent of all the heroin entering this country comes from Colombia. Delaying this aid package will only bring in more. Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard to stop the genocide in other countries. We now have the duty to stop the senseless slaughter of a generation of young Americans. If we love our children as much as we claim, then we must pass the Colombia aid package, and soon.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, let us face it, illegal drugs are killing our kids at an alarming rate. Every year we lose 52,000 young lives to drugs, nearly equal to the number of Americans killed in Vietnam over 10 years. According to the U.S. drug czar, one of every two American kids will try illegal drugs by the time they reach the 12th grade; many will become habitual users, leading to a life of crime, or worse, death. This is staggering. The cost of drug abuse to our society is estimated to be $110 billion per year. Not to mention the cost of countless lives lost and dreams broken. Each day that we put off consideration of the Colombia aid package, more of our kids will fall victim to the estimated 14 metric tons of heroin and 357 metric tons of cocaine which enters our country each year. With our strong support, Colombia could be successful at slowing the flow of drugs from their country to ours. Failing to provide this important aid now may result in the loss of Colombia to the drug cartels and future generations of Americans to the drug addiction. I urge support for the Colombia aid package.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, the soothsayer warned Caesar to ``beware of the Ides of March.'' Caesar did not listen and Caesar perished. Today, on this Ides of March, I bring my colleagues fair warning. If we do not pass the Colombia aid package soon, our friends in Colombia could suffer the same fate as Caesar and our own children could be next. Mr. Speaker, in fiscal year 1999, Federal agents intercepted nearly 2,800 pounds of heroin and 280,000 pounds of cocaine coming into the United States. And of these amounts, DEA estimates that 80 percent of the coke and 75 percent of the heroin originated in Colombia. These are staggering figures indeed, but they only represent the seizures. I can assure my colleagues that much more is making it to our streets and to our young people. Without U.S. help in fighting the drug war, the Colombian Government has little chance of ending the violence and stopping the flow of drugs. With the illegal drug trade providing the insurgents with over $600 million a year in drug money, it is likely that the duly-elected Government of Colombia will fall without our immediate help. Failing to act will stay with our children forever.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, soon the House is expected to consider the supplemental appropriations bill which contains the Colombia aid package. While this package is far from perfect, it is essential that we pass it now. Failure to do so would send a signal to the drug cartels in Colombia that this Congress is not serious about helping Colombia fight the war on drugs. In fact, delaying the passage of this bill any further has and will lead to increased violence in Colombia. On March 8, just last week, for example, 100 guerillas from the drug cartel-backed FARC attacked a village 250 miles south of Bogota and released 92 of their compatriots who were imprisoned there. No doubt further delays will lead to more and even more bolder attacks. This recent attack should present us with the more clear evidence that any further delay in passing a comprehensive aid package to Colombia will result in more violence, more attacks, and could threaten the very existence of the Colombian government. Mr. Speaker, if we fail to act now, we will leave our friends in Colombia vulnerable to the narcoterrorists who will freely build their power and wealth upon the broken lives of our children. I urge support for the supplemental.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, there are those who compare providing aid to Colombia to providing aid to Vietnam. This is an expected but faulty comparison. Unlike Vietnam, the consequences for failure in Colombia will not be another fallen domino in a far-off land. It will be more drug-related deaths in our own streets among our own children. Without immediate action on the proposed aid package to Colombia, the drug lords will continue, largely unimpeded, to produce and distribute their deadly drugs which kill almost as many American kids and young adults each year as died in Vietnam. That, Mr. Speaker, should be a wake-up call. Because Colombia is right here in our own hemisphere and not halfway around the world, what happens there will affect us more profoundly than what happened in Vietnam. The fact that Colombia is only 4 hours away by plane and can be reached by a car or truck, it becomes that much more important for us to help the country fight the narco- terrorists. The drugs which enter the United States each day from Colombia are far more of a threat to our national security than any Communist regime in Southeast Asia.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is voting on a package of tax relief designed to help America's small businessmen and women shoulder the burden of another increase in the federal minimum wage. Congress has already voted on many of the changes contained in the Small Business Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 3081) in the context of previous Republican-authored tax relief bills which either died in the other body or were vetoed by President Clinton. In the interest of protecting the small businesses and the jobs they create in my congressional district and around the nation, I believe this bill is needed and must accompany any proposed increase in the federal minimum wage. As such, I applaud Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer for his persistence in fighting for tax relief in this context as well as for measures which he championed to relieve the tax burden on working families. Although I believe the $45.8 billion price tag of H.R. 3081 is modest in comparison to earlier bills, it makes some important changes in the tax code which will help to insure the strength of the small business sector, the backbone of the American economy. First, the bill further reduces over five years a tax, created in 1916 in order to break up and redistribute a concentration of the nation's wealth, which was used to help fund World War I. This war was won in 1918, but the tax on estates remains. It is important to note that this tax penalizes not only so- called rich families, but the workers employed by these family businesses or farms if the 55% federal tax rate destroys or financially cripples these enterprises. I found this fact to be startling, only one-third of family-owned businesses survive into the next generation in many cases because of this so-called death tax. In addition, Congress needs to correct a problem created by Public Law 106-170 and once again allow accrual basis businesses to use the installment method of accounting on the sale of assets and the business. Congressional Republicans have continued the fight to provide the self-employed with 100 percent deductibility for their health insurance costs and have included it in this bill. As a small businessman myself, I know the importance of the increase from $19,000 to $30,000 in the amount of equipment eligible for expensing which H.R. 3081 seeks. Needless to say, the comprehensive package of pension reforms in the bill have widespread support and include provisions which in the past enjoyed the support of business and labor. I've mentioned the changes in H.R. 3081 which my constituents have consistently advocated. I hope we will see a large bipartisan majority voting for this tax relief package today. It is in everyone's interest to see to it that our nation's small businesses continue to flourish.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for many of the provisions of H.R. 3846. The bill makes several changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is the primary Federal statute that governs the hours of wages and work. As a general rule, the law requires employers to pay employees time and a half for overtime hours. However, there are a number of exemptions from the minimum wage and overtime for specific groups of employees. For example, there is a provision that has been part of the law since 1938 which provides an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime for an ``outside sales employee.'' The general requirement for meeting the exemption is that the individual must regularly work outside the employer's business establishment selling products or services. There is no minimum salary requirement. The bill would provide that a new exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the so-called ``inside sales'' employee, who works primarily at the employer's facility using the computer and the fax and the phone to communicate with customers. The bill has a three-part test for an overtime exemption for inside sales personnel: a detailed ``jobs duties'' test, a ``commission on sales'' test and a ``minimum compensation'' test. This would remove some of the constraints within the current law which frequently work against many highly trained, highly skilled sales employees by restricting their ability to achieve great earnings. The bill would further clarify the current exemption for computer professionals. In 1990, a bipartisan amendment to the act created an exemption for the minimum wage and overtime for certain high-skilled, well-compensated computer professionals. The exemption detailed a ``jobs duties'' test which clarified the treatment of these employees under the Act. However, there are now many new types of positions in the information technology industry that are not addressed by the current exemption, so the bill would update the law to reflect the recent changes in the technology industry. I would also note that the language in H.R. 3846 is identical to a bipartisan bill, H.R. 3038, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). The bill would provide a new exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act for licensed funeral directors and licensed embalmers from minimum wage and overtime. Licensed funeral directors and embalmers must typically undergo mandatory education and training to acquire the necessary skills to obtain their licenses and maintain their jobs. These types of employees are not specifically referenced in the current law, and this provision would provide some clarity as to their classification for the purposes of overtime. Finally, Mr. Speaker, while I support the three straightforward reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, I am unable to support the underlying purpose of this bill, which is to increase the minimum wage. We have heard so much today from proponents of the increase about how raising the minimum wage is an effective antipoverty program. We have also heard that increasing the minimum wage imposes little social cost. Unfortunately, the facts do not support either of these beliefs. First, most low-wage workers are not in poor families. Therefore, an increased earnings associated with a higher minimum wage would not significantly impact low-income families. According to recent studies, only one in four low-wage workers resides in the families in the bottom 20 percent of income distribution. Less than 1 dollar in 5 of the additional earnings going to families who rely on low-wage compensation as their primary source of compensation. When the additional earnings reach low-income families, most of the increase is taxed away by the Social Security contributions or the State and Federal income taxes. Second, it is illogical to think that wages will rise without any adverse result. Businesses may decide to increase their prices, reduce their workforce, or to meet their operations, or cut back on customer services. In other situations where the employer cannot reduce costs or raise prices, they must absorb the new labor costs. The money comes out of the expansion or investment. Either way, there are clearly costs, and I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider these issues.

Mr. BALLENGER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friends, and I would like to apologize to them ahead of time. We have heard so much discussion today from the proponents of the increase about a higher minimum wage lifting the working poor out of poverty. But the proposed increase will have little impact on low- income families because few workers actually support families under the minimum wage. The minimum wage is typically paid to individuals who are just entering the workforce, the overwhelming majority of whom are young, single, and childless. According to the statistics, or the data that we get from the U.S. Census Bureau, 37 percent of those who benefited from the last-minimum wage increase were young people living with their parents. Some 85 percent either live with their parents, or are single and childless, or living alone, or have a working spouse. Only one in ten minimum wage earners is trying to support a family. In reality, the minimum wage is a poorly targeted issue for anti-poverty as a tool. The proponents of a higher minimum wage increase seem to suggest that entry-level employees work for years without a wage increase. But according to recent research, the vast majority of those who start at the minimum wage do not remain there long. Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers move above the minimum wage within one year of working. The majority of minimum wage workers use entry level positions to gain experience and acquire the skills necessary to move ahead in better paying jobs. Those employees who do not quickly advance beyond the minimum wage tend to be the least skilled, the least educated, and the least experienced workers. Typically, those are the most vulnerable in terms of losing their jobs or having their hours of work reduced. Research has shown that the minimum wage increases shift many jobs from low- skilled adults to teenagers and students. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective way of helping those in need. It is not well targeted at poor families. And while it benefits some individuals, it will clearly harm others by lessening employment opportunities. For the 25 percent of low-wage workers whose families are poor, hiking the minimum wage too quickly may do more harm than good. Minimum wage increases cause price increases that disproportionately affect the poor. We also heard testimony regarding the disemployment effects of the higher minimum wage. Witnesses concluded that the net effect of the minimum wage is to increase the proportion of families that are poor. In addition, Chairman Greenspan has testified before Congress that the wage inflation that we may have could derail the booming economy. The hallmark of the economic good times we enjoy today has been low inflation. Raising the minimum wage will contribute to raise inflation at the same time as the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to contain the deleterious effects of wage inflation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many people here have ever worked at the minimum wage. I did when it was 65 cents an hour. I would like to mention, in fact, that in every one of the cases that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) mentioned, all of these are going to result in cost increases. Take day-care. I checked this out at home. The day-care workers that we have started on the CEDA program and they are now up to $7.50 an hour, $8 an hour. If we raise the minimum wage, do not tell me that they are still able to charge the same price for day-care. So anybody that uses day-care, anybody that uses those services for the elderly, they are going to all suffer from the increased costs.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, in a few weeks, the House will consider a supplemental appropriations bill that includes a much-needed comprehensive aid package to Colombia. The purpose of this package is to help that nation fight its war against the narcoterrorists that threaten its very survival. We must help the Colombians fight the drug lords because in the process it will help us take Colombian drugs off our own streets. Right now, 80 percent of the cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin which enters this country this day comes from Colombia. While I believe that we must do our part to reduce the demand here, helping the Colombians fight the narcoterrorists where they live will slow the flow of drugs which are poisoning our own communities. Choosing not to help, as we did last fall, will only embolden the drug lords, who, in the absence of a comprehensive aid package, could more openly and freely continue peddling death to the American children. Madam Speaker, I urge the immediate passage of the aid package to Colombia.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that another popular tax relief proposal, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, is coming up for a vote today. First, let me point out that the debate over H.R. 5 should contain no rhetoric that this repeal of the Social Security earnings limit will break the bank. The Social Security actuaries have confirmed that repeal of the earnings limit maintains the current projected solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. The repeal of the Social Security earnings limit for individuals who have attained the full retirement age has been a very high priority of mine and for my Republican colleagues elected to the House in 1986. Although we were able a few years ago to secure a gradual increase in the earnings limit for seniors who were 65 to 69 years old, the complete repeal of the earnings limit for this group is a big victory. I am pleased that so many senior citizens' groups have joined us in this fight, and I welcome President Clinton's announced support for this repeal as well. The Social Security earnings limit is a relic of the Great Depression when it was necessary to entice older workers to leave the work force, making more jobs available to younger workers. Today, many businesses and communities face a serious worker shortage. My congressional district has an especially low rate of unemployment now: a meager 1.6 percent. This means that opportunities for older workers abound, providing earning potential and related benefits to the seniors willing and physically able to meet the challenge. Further, I am pleased that H.R. 5 provides immediate relief by covering income earned after December 31, 1999. For those in the 10th Congressional District and elsewhere who do not know me well, I am proud to report that I am a working senior. Too old now to benefit from this change in the tax code, I nevertheless enjoy a higher quality of life--and perhaps better health--which comes with being more active. In addition, I feel that my many years of experience add to my job performance as a long work history does for so many seniors. Again, let me say that I appreciate the support of our colleagues in getting this repeal bill before the House today. Our Nation's seniors deserve this extra incentive to remain productive in their later years and our work force needs them.