Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentlewoman that I will do everything I can to work with her to make sure that we do address this issue. So I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it up.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the Fiscal Year 2006 Transportation, Treasury, HUD appropriations bill which was passed out of committee via voice vote last week. Before getting into the specifics of the bill, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their tireless work to finish these bills by the end of this week. Here we are on June 29 marking up the final of the 11 spending bills. I am sure that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) has been saving best for last. Mr. Chairman, I must acknowledge the role that my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), played in assembling this bill. I consider him a partner in creating the product before you because his input has been invaluable. We have found common ground more often than not, and what few differences remain are the result of honest disagreement. He and I have had several conversations about almost every facet of this bill. The staff has met repeatedly, and information has been shared in a timely manner. I believe the bill is stronger because of the input the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has provided. I also want to mention, of course, the staff which has contributed heavily and in mighty ways, extraordinary ways, to the completion of this bill. My clerk, Dena Baron, Cheryle Tucker, David Gibbons, David Napoliello, Steve Crane, Tammy Hughes, Kristen Jones; and on the minority side, Mike Malone, the clerk, and Michelle Burkett. They have done tremendous work. As my colleagues know, this is the committee's first year with its current jurisdiction, and I believe the product before us is worthy of this body's strong support. It is a fiscally responsible bill, funding high- priority programs and eliminating Federal funds for other programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The bill before us is at our 302(b) allocation of $66.9 billion in BA and provides total budgetary resources, including transportation obligation limitations and mandatory spending, of $134.9 billion, an increase of $7.2 billion over last year and $8.8 billion over the request. Let me be very clear here. These increases do not represent frivolous spending by the committee. The increases over the budget request and last year are due to House rules mandating certain funding levels for highways, transit and aviation programs, House rules that we voted for. We also retained CDBG in the bill and were able to fund it at a level near last year's limit. As most of my colleagues know, the President proposed eliminating that program, but the response was overwhelming to keep it right here in HUD. In transportation, we have met all of our guarantees for surface transportation and safety, and aviation infrastructure as included in TEA-LU and Vision-100. For FAA operations, we have provided funds for 595 new controllers, plus an additional $8 million over the request for safety inspectors. I realize there will be a lot of attention paid to Amtrak today. The bill provides $550 million, $190 million more than was included in the budget request, and $657 billion below last year's enacted level. To that end, this bill prohibits Federal funds for any Amtrak route that requires a subsidy of $30 or more per passenger, most of which, of course, are long-distance routes. The 24 routes that require a Federal subsidy of less than $30 per passenger will continue to receive Federal aid, and those 24 routes account for more than 80 percent of Amtrak's annual ridership. Let me just repeat that: The 24 routes that will continue to receive the Federal subsidy make up more than 80 percent of the ridership. Specifically, the bill permits Amtrak to use Federal funds to support operations for the following: All routes in the northeast corridor, including spurs that run from New York City to Albany, from New Haven, Connecticut, to Vermont, and from Portland, Maine, to Boston; routes running through Pennsylvania; most corridor routes in the Midwest; trains running from Portland, Oregon, to Vancouver; and corridor routes in California. I want to also be clear that it does not prohibit Amtrak from using non-Federal resources to support other routes, nor does it mandate that any routes be shut down or truncated. We need to make it clear that Congress will no longer sanction the use of taxpayer dollars on such extremely unprofitable routes. From the very first time I picked up the subcommittees gavel, I knew that Amtrak would be a major issue of contention. I came in with an open mind and had no preconceived notions of an outcome. I instructed staff to follow the facts wherever they may lead, and Mr. Chairman, they have led us right here. The Amtrak proposal before the House is an honest one and worthy of our support. In the Department of the Treasury, we fully funded the budget request for the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The Community Development Financial Institutions program fund is funded at last year's level of $55 million. The IRS is funded at a total of $10.5 billion, an increase of $313 million from last year and a decrease of $130 million from the request. This funding level allows IRS to maintain the critical balance between taxpayer services and enforcement activities. While the IRS requested more funds for enforcement, the request relied on a Budget Enforcement Act provision that our Committee on the Budget did not adopt in the budget resolution. Also included in Title II is an administrative provision that prohibits the IRS from closing taxpayer assistance centers until IRS submits a report outlining the impacts of the closures on taxpayer compliance and consults with stakeholders. The committee had two priorities to meet for HUD in 2006. First and foremost was the protection of all extremely low-income families currently receiving Section 8 and public housing rental assistance, and to continue to restore facilities and rental assistance for low-income individuals that are severely disabled or have HIV/AIDS, all of which the administration proposed for major reductions. Failure to fully meet this commitment would have resulted in thousands of families losing their assistance and becoming homeless. To achieve this, the committee added more than $2 billion over last year's funding level and more than $700 million over the administration's proposals for these programs. Our second priority is to retain and restore to the maximum extent possible the formula funding for cities and towns across America through the Community Development Block Grant. As my colleagues know, the administration proposed to terminate this program, which was funded at $4.7 billion last year, but we were able to restore formula funding for CDBG to within 6 percent of the amounts provided in 2005. To fund these high priorities, however, the committee had to do a broad sweep of duplicative and lower-priority programs throughout the Department, including boutique programs that have typically been funded by reducing the amounts in the formula CDBG program. It is never easy to stop funding a program once it gets started receiving Federal funds, but we have to make these decisions in order to meet our main funding objectives. For the Judiciary, the bill provides sufficient funding to maintain current services of the Federal Judiciary, including rent and personnel increases. In addition, we fully fund the Judiciary's revised request for court security. For the District of Columbia, we provided the budget request for Federal payments to the District, which includes tuition assistance, court costs and school improvement. As for the District's local budget, the bill appropriates the budget and financial plan by reference, and carries many of the same general provisions of the past. We funded HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program at $227 million. That is the same as last year, and it was $77 million over the request. Other Executive Office of the President programs are funded at the requested levels. As for the General Provisions, we recommend no substantive changes to the provisions carried in prior years. All in all, after much hard work and discussion, I believe that we have a balanced bill before us. No, we did not fund every program, but we did fund the higher priorities under our jurisdiction that will deliver the best results to the most people, and that is our responsibility. I would like to take a moment and talk about a few of the amendments which may be before us today. This is a large bill with a rather vast and disparate list of agencies under its title. When it comes to dividing up the 302(b) allocation, we really have to do a balancing act. Each agency has a responsibility to the citizens of this Nation and each has a role to play. GSA has the responsibility for being the Federal landlord, for every citizen receiving Social Security or needing a passport or a visa, for every veteran needing his claim adjudicated, for every neighborhood waiting on an economic development grant, every citizen seeking justice in a Federal courtroom, or relying on the Department of Homeland Security to keep our borders safe. GSA provides those buildings to do its work, and the public, of course, to find the government. To view the Federal Buildings Fund as a bottomless offset for ``program'' spending is dishonest to the programs we propose to fund. I do have an amendment to offer with the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, that takes money from an unidentified project in GSA and moves it to CDBG for Youthbuild and tax law enforcement. Other than that one amendment, I think it is a good bill. I urge its adoption quickly so we can move to other urgent business. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the vice chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is my understanding that the chairman intends to work with us to incorporate this provision into future legislation that the House will consider. Is that correct?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 47, line 19, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 194, line 7, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3058 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 342, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 4, 8 and 13; An amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding HOPWA; An amendment by Mr. Pickering regarding enforcement of the Individuals With Disabilities Parking Reform Amendment Act; An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding D.C. funding; An amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding contracting out flight service stations, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by Ms. DeLauro regarding corporate entities chartered in Antigua, Panama, Bermuda, Barbados and the Cayman Islands, which shall be debatable for 15 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding an OMB Circular, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Cuellar regarding funding for the Community Development Fund; An amendment by Mrs. Jones of Ohio regarding HOME Investment Partnership Program; An amendment by Ms. Waters regarding funding for the Community Development Fund; An amendment by Mr. Costello regarding cities of Alton and Granite City, Illinois; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding for the Supreme Court; An amendment by Ms. Herseth regarding judiciary funding; An amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding increasing funds for HIDTA; An amendment by Ms. Velazquez regarding e-travel and small business protection; An amendment by Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan regarding the sale of Unocal Corporation; An amendment by Mr. Van Hollen regarding revisions to circular A-76; An amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding regulations on U.S. business competitiveness; An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut; An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding reporting on the cost of new prescription drugs; An amendment by Mr. Hinchey regarding private contractor activity; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding eminent domain; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding the travel ban with Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding religious exemption on the travel ban with Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding cap on remittances with Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding enforcement of the weight limit on baggage for travel to Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding amateur sports teams travel to Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding family travel to Cuba by members of the Armed Forces; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding trade agreements and their relationship with Cuba; An amendment by Ms. Lee regarding academic institutions and travel to Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Rangel regarding enforcement of the economic embargo on Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Honda regarding military recruiters and the Department of Education; An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding transfer of tax activity among countries; An amendment by Mr. Wynn regarding financial contractors; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding section 12 of the U.S. Housing Act; An amendment by Mr. Clay regarding FHA loans and abusive lending practices; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for the FAA; An amendment by Mr. Souder regarding enforcement of firearms laws in D.C.; An amendment by Mr. Simmons regarding private debt collection; An amendment by Mr. Souder regarding media campaigns; and An amendment by Mr. Knollenberg regarding funding levels. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Let me begin by commending the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his work as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. Every year he puts a great deal of effort into examining the issues thoroughly and giving sincere consideration to Members' requests. Thanks to his efforts, we have before us today an excellent bill. I also commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member. She and I have worked together on a number of issues over the years, and together we have achieved some important results. I also want to thank all of the staff for their hard work and the research they have done over the weeks and months to address the many issues in this bill. Their organization and discipline has made this year's process move more smoothly. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to exercise our oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent as effectively as possible. Oversight has been a primary focus of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations this year, and there are important provisions in this bill to help make our foreign assistance programs more accountable. This bill requires the administration and international organizations to set transparent goals and measure progress towards these goals in tangible ways. The bill also limits spending until certain reforms are implemented. Because of this oversight, the committee has been able to produce a bill that is $2.5 billion below the administration's request and still focuses on the important priorities. Assistance to the Middle East is always a central part of this bill. For fiscal year 2006, Israel will receive $2.28 billion in military assistance, $240 million in economic assistance, and $40 million to help resettle Jewish refugees in Israel. I strongly support all of this funding. I am also pleased that the bill provides $40 million for assistance to Lebanon, which is an increase of $5 million from last year. With Syria's military withdrawal from Lebanon and the recent elections, there is an opportunity for positive change. This extra funding will give the State Department and USAID some flexibility to take advantage of this opportunity. There are also a variety of important programs in the bill that provide support to reform efforts within the countries of the broader Middle East, including $85 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative. Regarding Armenia, the bill provides $67.5 million in economic assistance. Unfortunately, Turkey and Azerbaijan continue to seal the transportation routes into and out of Armenia, so this funding is important to offset this economic blockade. The bill also maintains parity in military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is critical to our overall policy toward the South Caucasus. There are other valuable programs in this bill, including the Millennium Challenge Corporation and funding to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS. But in addition to what this bill does include, what is equally important is what this bill does not include. Specifically, this bill does not include any funding for the Global Environmental Facility. Plain and simple, this is a matter of accountability, and we cannot afford to waste money on organizations that refuse to implement good-government reforms. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsive bill. It is the result of significant oversight. It is fiscally sound, and it focuses on priorities that will advance our interests. For all of these reasons, I strongly support this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it on the floor today.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time and for bringing the rule to the floor on H.R. 3058. It is a bill making appropriations for, as has been mentioned, Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies, and that is why we call it TTHUD. This is a good rule for a really good bill. We have tried diligently to work with the many authorizing committees of jurisdiction on the various provisions of our bill, and I think we have come to a great deal of agreement on those provisions. I thank my colleagues for working with us in such good faith, and I appreciate their help in bringing this bill to the floor tomorrow. This bill fully funds surface transportation programs as authorized by TEA-LU and aviation programs as authorized in VISION-100. I want to repeat this; at least I want to say it once and maybe twice: we fully fund Section 8 and many other housing and assistance programs under HUD. We fully fund Section 8. We have even managed to keep CDBG in HUD. Not one dime did we not fund in the request. Did we have to make some hard decisions? Yes, we did. But we funded the most important, the most beneficial, the most effective programs under our jurisdiction. There are some programs, like Hope 6, Youthbuild, and Amtrak, which are in desperate need of reform or reauthorization. We felt that rather than continuing to throw money at these programs, we would let the authorizers have their chance to provide oversight and legislative direction. All in all, this is a balanced and good bill that we will consider tomorrow. I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) here today, for their work, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2006 Science, State, Justice Appropriations bill and to compliment my colleague, Frank Wolf, for a job well done. I am particularly pleased with the increase given to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP and I would like to commend Chairman Wolf for his support of this important program. The manufacturing sector in this country faces many challenges. There are several major issues that we and other policy makers on the Federal level need to address to improve the business environment for manufacturers. Those will take time. But the MEP program has a direct impact on thousands of small and medium manufacturers each year. MEP is a Federal-State-private network of over 60 centers with 400 locations in all 50 States. These not-for-profit centers work with small and medium-sized manufacturers to help them adopt and use the latest and most efficient technologies, processes, and business practices. The MEP Center in my home State, the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, or MMTC, helps Michigan's small and medium-sized manufacturing companies get competitive and remain that way. Founded in 1991, MMTC has six offices in Michigan. I have heard from numerous companies throughout Michigan that have benefited from MMTC's services. Let me point out one such company, Tru-Val Tubing Company in Waterford, Michigan, which is located in my district. Tru-Val fabricates metal tubing for General Motors and DaimlerChrysler as well as several other Tier I automotive suppliers and employs approximately 120 people. Tru-Val Tubing began working with the MMTC in 1999, and over the past 6 years of improvements, the company's defective parts-per-million have dropped from 3,500 to zero. This resulted in General Motors reclassifying Tru-Val from the bottom 5 percent to the top 5 percent of their supply base. Furthermore, Tru-Val's employees are much more satisfied with their jobs than they once were, as the company has seen a dramatic reduction in employee turnover. Most importantly, Tru-Val increased its employment from 85 to 120 as a result of the improvement in the company. Helro Corporation of Rochester, Michigan, also located in my district, is another excellent example. Helro, a small manufacturer with 19 employees, was established in the 1960s as a form toolmaker, using a patented carbide coating and whitewall tire buffing. After relocating to Rochester, Michigan, in April 1998, Helro recognized that it would need to achieve certification if it wanted to compete in the tooling marketplace. Finding the idea of a peer group exchange of information appealing, Helro quickly joined MMTC's ISO 9000 User Group and got everyone in the company involved. As a result, Helro came through its ISO 9001 certification audit with flying colors and was certified in September 2000. Through the certification process, Helro identified areas of waste, resulting in savings that covered the cost of its participation in the User Group. Moreover, Helro improved customer satisfaction and its credibility in the marketplace, allowing for easier introduction of its new product line. The results at Tru-Val Tubing and Helro are not an anomaly. In fiscal year 2003 alone, MEP served more than 18,0 0 manufacturers nationwide. Those manufacturers reported an additional $2.6 billion in sales, $686 million more in cost savings, $912 million of additional investment in plant modernization, and more than 50,000 more jobs just as a result of their projects with MEP Centers that year. Additionally, an estimate of the Federal return on our investment in MEP Centers is $4 in Federal tax revenue for every $1 invested in the program. MEP has a documented positive impact on our manufacturing sector, and is particularly vital to our small manufacturers. As vital as this program is to our manufacturers, fiscal year 2006 funding is vital to MEP. In addition to the funding restored to MEP, I am also pleased with the increase given to the National Science Foundation. NSF is the most important funding source for universities who educate the next generation of scientists engineers and thereby plant the seed for America's future prosperity. I hope that NSF will continue its strong support of university based laboratories and user facilities, including the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University. These NSF-supported labs create powerful synergies between cutting edge research and education and are a model of state and federal partnership. We can't afford to underestimate the importance of these programs. Our educators tell us that students are attracted by on-campus capabilities; not by the promise of an airline ticket to some remote laboratory in the U.S. or even abroad where they can visit for a few weeks. As well, the current funding level should provide NSF with the flexibility to support both its planned activities and fund peer- reviewed, non-solicited proposals. Progress in science is often unpredictable and NSF must reserve the institutional agility to invest in ``bottom-up'' ideas that result from fast-breaking research discoveries. Timely, flexible funding through NSF is a critical investment in our economic future and continued scientific leadership in the world. It deserves our support. In closing, I would like to again extend my thanks to Chairman Wolf for his excellent work, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, on June 13 and 14, 2005, I was unavoidably absent and rollcall votes 241-243. For the record, had I been present, I would have voted: No. 241--Yea; No. 242--Yea; No. 243-- Yea.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, one of our Nation's greatest assets is our veterans. When I look around this chamber and see the reflection of our democracy, I can't help but think of those who fought to ensure our safety, our strength, and our freedom. I rise today to recognize an honored veteran and an extraordinary American, Mr. Hugh Ferguson. Those who study World War II are aware that the United States was at war with Japan for three months after Germany surrendered. The end of the war with Japan came only after President Harry S Truman made the brave and difficult decision to use the atomic bomb. On August 9, 1945, Mr. Hugh Ferguson was piloting the B-29 bomber plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. This mission required bravery, faith, and discipline in order to see it through. Mr. Ferguson was just a mere twenty-two years old when his country employed his piloting skills to end the battle and forever change the make-up of the world. As Mr. Ferguson will tell you, he and his fellow pilots knew their acts would end World War II and save hundreds of thousands of American lives. This knowledge made it clear to Mr. Ferguson what his mission was and that his success was necessary--even at its great cost. It takes a brave and faithful man to carry out the missions of the United States military. It takes an even braver man to test history with the new technology that was the atomic bomb. Yet, Mr. Ferguson's bravery did not stop there. Years later, he again answered the military's call of duty. Mr. Ferguson flew the only plane on site when the United States detonated the world's first hydrogen bomb on Eniwetok Atoll. Not knowing the consequences of this flight, he and his crew bravely documented the power of the hydrogen bomb for United States officials. This year marks Mr. Ferguson's 82nd birthday. I wish to congratulate and honor him for his service to this country in the face of war. As a member of Congress, as a proud citizen of the United States, and as a person who enjoys the freedom this great Nation offers, I officially recognize Mr. Hugh Ferguson.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I join the people of the 9th Congressional District and the State of Michigan in announcing the opening of the Michigan Chapter of Justice for Children. JFC is the only nonprofit corporation formed to save at risk unprotected children who have been physically abused or neglected. Justice for Children intervenes on behalf of abused children when child protection agencies and courts fail to protect them. They help children whose cases have been closed by Children's Protective Services before help has been provided and have no Court Appointed Special Advocate or who even with CASA support, are on the verge of being sent back to an abusive home. Last year Mr. Chip St. Clair, a Rochester Hills resident, called the JFC National Office in Houston and said he wanted to make something good arise from his childhood of abuse and violence. Becoming a regional director for JFC fulfills that desire and the abused children of Michigan now have an ardent advocate to save them from the life he had to endure as a child. Mr. St. Clair was a victim of terrible abuse at the hands of his father--Michael Grant--who was a convicted child murderer. That murder took place in 1970 in Indiana. Grant escaped from the Indiana State Penitentiary in 1973 with the aid of the woman who would become Chip's mother. St. Clair was born in 1975 and did not discover that his father was a murderer until 1998 when he was 23 years old. ``I emptied the glass which was full of horror stories of my childhood and began filling that glass with nobility and honor. Joining JFC and helping abused children represents a major step in the Journey of Justice which began on that fateful day in 1998,'' said St. Clair. Justice for Children has been acclaimed by the American Bar Association, jurists from around the country, national television networks, news programs, and bipartisan congressional leaders for its work on behalf of abused and neglected children. Today we honor the Michigan Chapter of Justice for Children and Director, Chip St. Clair for their dedication to help abused and neglected children.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 32, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' This legislation will help stop the scourge of counterfeit manufactured goods. Let me thank the Committee on the Judiciary in its entirety, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for all of his assistance, the subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and the majority leader for his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor today. Most people understand that counterfeit goods is a problem, but many people do not understand how severe the problem is and how severe it has become. Counterfeiters are endangering consumers, are stealing jobs and money away from legitimate companies, destroying brand names and requiring costly investigations. The numbers are staggering, in addition to safety issues, and it has been mentioned about counterfeit auto parts, but they cost the automotive supplier over $12 billion annually. It has been estimated if these losses were eliminated, the industry could hire some 200,000 additional workers. The impact of counterfeiters affects almost every manufacturing industry in the country, including clothing, batteries, electronics and even pharmaceuticals. When it comes to the economy, the U.S. Customs Service has estimated that counterfeiting resulted in the loss of some 750,000 jobs and cost the U.S. around $20 billion annually. It is estimated almost 7 percent of world trade is counterfeit. My bill has two key provisions that will help address the problem. The first provision is the most important. It requires the mandatory destruction and forfeiture of the equipment and materials used to make counterfeit goods. Under current law, a convicted trademark counterfeiter is only required to give up the actual counterfeit goods, not the machinery used to make those goods. My bill would prohibit trafficking in counterfeit labels, patches, and medallions. Passing this bill will send a signal to counterfeiters around the world that the U.S. will fight this growing problem. This bill will give prosecutors more tools to go after the criminals and punish them severely. This legislation also addresses the global problem, and has the widespread support of the MEMA, NEMA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 32--the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' This legislation will help stop the scourge of counterfeit manufactured goods. Let me thank the Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Sensenbrenner, Subcommittee Chairman Coble and Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith. They've all provided important leadership to bring this bill to the floor today. I'd also like to thank the leadership, including Majority Leader DeLay, for their help in getting this bill through the process. The economy of my district is largely centered on the auto industry, particularly auto suppliers. In fact, my district includes the headquarters of over one-fourth of the 100 largest auto suppliers in North America, as well as a host of small suppliers. To say that the manufacturing sector is important to my district and to the State of Michigan is an understatement. In my district alone, there are more than 1,500 manufacturing entities, and over 90 percent of them have less than 100 employees. Most people understand that counterfeit goods are a problem. But many people don't understand just how severe the problem has become. Early last year, I was made aware of the serious and growing problem of counterfeit auto parts. What I found out was the counterfeiters are making all sorts of fake parts including brake pads, spark plugs, old filters, and in one case even an entire car. I was struck by how large an impact counterfeiters are having on the auto supplier industry. The numbers, in fact, are staggering. In addition to the obvious safety issues, counterfeit automobile parts cost the automotive supplier industry over $12 billion annually. It's estimated that if these losses were eliminated, and those sales were brought into legitimate companies, the auto industry could hire 200,000 additional workers. It's important to remember those numbers, because counterfeiting is not a victimless crime. In addition to selling bogus products, the counterfeiters are stealing jobs and money away from legitimate companies, destroying brand names, increasing warranty claims, and requiring legal fees and costly investigations. The fight against counterfeiters is not limited to the automotive industry. The impact of counterfeiters is broad and affects just about every manufacturing industry in the country--including clothing, batteries, electronics, and even pharmaceuticals. When it comes to the economy overall, the U.S. Customs Service has estimated that counterfeiting has resulted in the loss of 750,000 jobs and costs the United States around $200 billion annually. The International Chamber of Commerce estimates that seven percent of the world's trade is in counterfeit goods and that the counterfeit market is worth $350 billion. We must provide more tools to fight counterfeiters, not only for the economy, but for the safety of our consumers. My bill has two key provisions that will help stop criminals who use counterfeit trademarks. The first provision is the most important and gets at the roots of the problem--it requires the mandatory destruction and forfeiture of the equipment and materials used to make the counterfeit goods. Under current law, a convicted trademark counterfeiter is only required to give up the actual counterfeit goods, not the machinery used to make those goods. If we don't take away the equipment used to make the fake goods, what's to stop the criminals from going back to make more? My bill would require the convicted criminals to give up not just the counterfeit goods, but also the equipment they used to make those goods. This will help to dig up the counterfeiting networks by the roots. In addition to this provision, my bill also prohibits trafficking in counterfeit labels, patches, and medallions. Under current law, it is legal to make and sell these items if they are not attached to a particular counterfeit good. This just doesn't make sense. Why would counterfeiters make these labels, if not for the chance at illegal profits? This bill will send a signal to counterfeiters that the United States is serious about fighting this growing problem. Passing this bill will give prosecutors more tools to go after the criminals here in the U.S. and punish them severely. This bill is also necessary to address the problem globally. Most of the counterfeit goods are being manufactured in other countries, particularly China. Some countries are better than others at fighting counterfeiting, but we need to have ways to prod the stragglers. However, we can't demand that other countries take steps to combat trademark counterfeiting that we have not taken ourselves. So, by passing my bill and improving our own law, Congress will empower our trade negotiators to press for stronger anti-counterfeiting provisions in other countries. We will show the world that the United States is serious about putting counterfeiters out of business for good. This bill has broad support, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the IACC, International Trademark Association and a host of major associations and corporations. As I have outlined, counterfeiting is a very serious worldwide problem that threatens public safety, hurts the U.S. economy and costs Americans thousands of manufacturing jobs. No one supports counterfeiters, and we must do everything we can to eliminate the problem. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support H.R. 32, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. April 24th, of every year, marks the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Ninety years ago, 1.5 million innocent Armenians were killed at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. This, the first genocide of the 20th century, must be remembered, acknowledged, and continuously reaffirmed. It must be our goal to remind the Congress, remind the country, and remind the world that the Genocide happened. It is a historical fact, and we will never forget. The United States should affirm the genocide once and for all for so many reasons. But one of the most important reasons is so that we prevent atrocities from happening in the future. If we're ever going to prevent genocides in the future, the world has to admit to the past. When genocides happen, we have to condemn them for what they are. The quote from Adolf Hitler, in justifying his evil acts, says it all--``who remembers today the extermination of the Armenians?'' Well, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I'm here today to answer that question. We remember. And we'll never forget. And we're not alone by a long shot. In fact, 37 States in this country have formally recognized the Armenian Genocide. I think that's a strong statement about the level of support in this country for recognizing the Genocide. And of course the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues is fully committed to this cause. On April 24th of every year, the President is required to issue a statement on the Armenian Genocide. Recently, 178 Members of the House of Representatives, and 32 Senators sent letters to the President urging him to use the word ``genocide'' in this year's statement. We will continue our efforts here in Congress and use all the means at our disposal. Some dispute the charge against the Ottomans, but let me make my feelings clear; the Armenian Genocide happened, and it is the duty and responsibility of the United States and this Congress to affirm that. I rise today, to reaffirm my position; it is time the United States Congress does the same.