Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, taxes today are at an all-time high as a percentage of our economy. The fact is the Federal Government is currently sucking up more of the American economy than it took to win World War II. That is simply wrong. But that is not all. At the same time the Federal budget is running record-level surpluses, we are also experiencing the largest tax overpayment in history. That is not only wrong, it must be changed as soon as possible. Tomorrow is the opportunity. Tomorrow, we consider H.R. 3, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. This bill will increase fairness in the Tax Code, allow every American income taxpayer to keep more of their own money and provide support to our economy at the same time. This is a historic opportunity. It is a proper reaction. It is the right thing to do, and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for this responsible and much-needed tax relief.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak on this resolution. I rise today to offer my support for House Resolution 34, congratulating Israel on a fair, democratic election and encouraging long-lasting peace in the Middle East. Both the United States and Israel share a deep commitment to democracy and free elections. This commitment provides a foundation for the great successes our countries have enjoyed. I join my colleagues today in commending the people of Israel for their dedication to democratic values and a system of competitive, free, and open elections. This resolution also reaffirms the commitment of the United States to pursuing a secure peace for Israel and all the people of the Middle East. Given the events in and around Israel in recent months, and its relationship with the U.S., I believe supporting Israel is essential to our national interest. I am pleased that this resolution reconfirms our commitment to supporting Israel, and I am hopeful the parties involved in the current turmoil will find a way to bring lasting peace to the region. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsors for bringing this timely resolution to the floor today, and I encourage all Members to join in supporting its passage.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here today to honor President Ronald Reagan on his 90th birthday. President Reagan's policies have shaped this great nation and set us on the path to the longest peacetime economic expansion since the end of the Second World War. His optimism restored Americans' confidence in our great nation and in themselves. President Reagan once said ``A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough.'' President Reagan proved he was a true leader. Despite dire predictions from pundits about his policies, Reagan fought for what he believed in and made the country better off as a result. President Reagan inherited an economy that was out of control with high inflation, interest rates and unemployment. Americans were being held hostage in Iran and the Soviet Union was threatening freedom across the world. Once elected, Reagan embarked on an ambitious agenda to reduce taxes, reduce Americans' dependence on the federal government, and achieve ``peace through strength'' by rebuilding our military. His tax cuts stimulated the economy and Americans re-elected him by one of the largest margins in U.S. history. During his second term, we began to see the results of Reagan's commitment to the principles of individual rights for all and projecting military strength with the weakening of communist control of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. These principles led soon thereafter to the collapse of the Berlin Wall the Soviet Union. America is still experiencing the benefits of the Reagan's economic policies of lower taxes, free trade and reliance on free markets. We have had eighteen consecutive years of nearly unbroken economic growth and low inflation. Productivity is growing and incomes are rising. As Reagan stated at the end of his presidency: In eight short years, we have reversed a 50-year trend of turning to the government for solutions. We have relearned what our founding Fathers knew long ago-it is the people, not the government, who provide the vitality and creativity that make a great nation. Just as the first American Revolution, which began with the shot heard `round the world, inspired people everywhere who dreamed of freedom, so has this second American revolution inspired changes throughout the world. The message we brought to Washington--reduce the government, reduce regulation, restore incentives--has been heard around the world. One of Reagan's greatest legacies is that he restored Americans' confidence in themselves and reminded them that the government has no power except that granted it by the people. I look forward to continuing Reagan's revolution by fighting for lower taxes, less intrusive government and individual responsibility. Happy Birthday President Reagan and God bless.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise this morning to join the bipartisan voices of support to the nation of India during this extremely difficult time. As was noted last Friday, western India, Gujarat, was struck by a devastating earthquake resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of lives. It has been mentioned that 100,000 might be reached, death and devastation that defies description. Perhaps the injuries will be in the hundreds of thousands, economic damage of $5 billion or more, and perhaps even that is not measurable. With the destruction of thousands of buildings and the devastation of the region's infrastructure, India is in great need of support from the international community. And I am glad to hear that USAID has weighed in with an initial response on January 27th of $5 million. There is more to come. Along with that, the international community, the European Union, the International Red Cross is on board. Things are happening, but it cannot happen fast enough. So, Mr. Speaker, I offer my condolences to all the families and individuals in India and the United States, and particularly those in my own district in Michigan who lost their loved ones, as well as those who have lost homes and possessions. I urge all Members to join in expressing our deepest sympathies and continued support as the people of India face the enormous task of rebuilding their country. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution and I commend the authors, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), as cochairs, for bringing this resolution forward.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I submit legislation that would eliminate needless bureaucratic regulations in the labeling of the sweetener saccharin. I've called it the ``SWEETEST Act'' which stands for Saccharin Warning Elimination via Environmental Testing Employing Science and Technology. Saccharin was first discovered in 1879 and it has been safely employed as a no-calorie sweetener for over one hundred years now. Concerns over saccharin's safety were first raised twenty years ago after a flawed study that administered huge quantities of the artificial sweetener to laboratory rats produced bladder tumors in rats. New and better scientific research has decisively shown that the earlier rat studies are not at all applicable to humans. Earlier this year, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) removed saccharin from its 9th Report on Carcinogens. In doing so NTP joined numerous other world health agencies in recognizing the safety of saccharin. NTP's action negated the need for the current warning label mandated by the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act of 1977 (SSLA) on all products containing saccharin. The Food and Drug Administration recognized that the mandated warning label is inappropriate and agreed to support its repeal. This legislation removes Section 403, paragraph (o) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) and Section 4, paragraph (c) of the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act (P.L. 95-203). Those requirements formed the basis for the unnecessary warning statements found on common packets of sweeteners used every day in thousands of households and restaurants across the nation. Given saccharin's favorable synergistic properties in combination with other sweeteners and its low cost, many food, beverage, and health care manufacturers are very interested in developing new products utilizing this sweetener.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of the 106th Congress, I rise today to add perspective to the issue of the Armenian Genocide. Like many, I was deeply disappointed that the House did not consider H. Res. 596, the Armenian Genocide Resolution. As my colleagues are well aware, the resolution was not considered because the Republic of Turkey decided to turn a sense of the House Resolution about the extensive U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide into a litmus test of its relationship with the United States. In an effort to stop the resolution, Turkey made repeated threats. In fact, many newspaper articles covering the progress of H. Res. 596 cited Turkey's numerous threats should this body move forward. These threats were not only directed at the United States, but also at Armenia and Armenians living in Turkey. In Istanbul, Turkey, people threw rocks at the windows of the Armenian Church of Samatia, an Armenian priest was subjected to physical attacks, another priest was arrested for referencing the Armenian Genocide, True Path Party leader Tansu Ciller called for the deportation of 30,000 Armenians, military activities increased along the border, and this shocking list goes on. I regret that the Republic of Turkey opted to use coercion to make its case. However, it is even more regrettable that the United States succumbed to such tactics. I believe that we must remain vigilant in the fact of threats and those who continue to deny the Armenian Genocide. While the resolution was aborted in Congress, internationally the pace of Genocide affirmation continued. During November alone, despite Turkish threats, the European Parliament, along with France and Italy, all adopted resolutions affirming the Armenian Genocide. In addition, Pope John Paul II recognized the Armenian Genocide. Today I am submitting copies of these documents for the record. Many experts have called for a dialogue between Turkey and Armenia on this subject. In fact, on October 3rd, the State Department offered to broker a dialogue between these two countries. While Armenia has repeatedly agreed, Turkey has refused. During his address at the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations in Washington, DC last month, Anthony Blinken, U.S. National Security Council European Director, indicated that Turkey had the responsibility to take the first step to start a dialogue with Armenia. Blinken said ``as a small, landlocked country suffering from economic problems, Armenia sees Turkey as offering a fist, not a hand.'' I agree with Mr. Blinken on this point. From Armenia's perspective, Turkey's ongoing hostile actions and continued violations of international human rights laws and treaties represent a significant security threat. Turkey's defense spending is the highest of any NATO country as a percentage of its Gross National Product (GNP) and over the next 25 years Turkey plans to spend $150 billion modernizing its armed forces--against whom is unclear. Armenia simply does not have the resources to defend its own borders, especially given Turkey's military superiority and defense spending. Turkey's blockade, refusal to establish normal relations, military superiority, refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, and complete solidarity with Azerbaijan's demands regarding the Nagorno Karabagh conflict has only served to reinforce Armenia's view and has forced Armenia to rely on third parties to buttress its security capacity. As my colleagues know, Armenians faced genocide at the beginning of the 20th Century and the Armenians of Nagorno Karabagh suffered another attack during the end of the 20th Century. It is incumbent on us to ensure that Armenians and others around the world are not subjected to genocide in the 21st Century. I would like to point out to my colleagues that since gaining its independence Armenia has consistently reached out and sought to normalize relations with Turkey only to be rebuffed at every step. Last year, when Turkey suffered a devastating earthquake, Armenia was one of the first countries to offer assistance. Armenia, having endured a major earthquake years before, has developed an expertise in earthquake response and recovery. Despite Armenia's offer, Turkey initially rejected assistance. In fact, it was reported that Turkey's Minister of Health, Osman Durmus, rejected offers of blood from Armenia because he didn't want Turkish blood mixed with theirs. More recently, Armenia offered earthquake assistance to Azerbaijan. To date, Azerbaijan has not accepted Armenia's offer. Finally, Armenia's President, Robert Kocharian has proposed the creation of a regional security system that will facilitate long-term peace and regional cooperation. President Kocharian stated, ``the creation of such a system will allow the states of the region to cast away the current concerns and to overcome the atmosphere of distrust. It will allow [the settlement of] the current conflicts, to avoid the emergence of new dividing lines, to establish long-term peace, and to think about prospects of development and [a] prosperous future.'' Turkey did not take President Kocharian up on his offer. Time and time again, Armenia has shown its willingness to normalize relations with its neighbors. However, Armenia's offers have fallen on deaf ears. In my view, if Congress is unwilling to recognize and affirm the U.S. record in response to the Armenian Genocide, why would Turkey feel any obligation to enter into a dialogue with its weaker neighbor Armenia when it has successfully silenced the United States? It is my hope that we can continue to work on these important human rights issues during the 107th Congress and create an atmosphere in the Caucasus region whereby the security of all countries is not at issue and people can exchange views without the fear of retribution. Italian Resolution The Italian Chamber of Deputies has observed that on November 15, 2000 the European Parliament approved by a large majority a proposal deriving from the Periodic Review on the progress made by Turkey towards admission to the European Community, a review completed by the European Commission in 1999. The Turkish government has been encouraged to intensify its efforts towards democratization, especially in the fields of criminal law reform, independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, and the rights of minorities. The Italian Chamber of Deputies has also observed that the recent resolution deals with questions concerning the Armenian people in three paragraphs of particular significance: ``we urge recognition of the genocide inflicted upon the Armenian minority [within the Ottoman Empire] committed before the creation of the modern Republic of Turkey (paragraph 10); improvement of relations with Turkey's neighbors in the Caucasus, as proposed by the Turkish government itself (paragraph 20;'' and, in support of the suggestion put forward in paragraph 21 by the Hon. D. Cohn- Bendit, President of the Bipartisan Parliamentary Commission on UE-Turkish relations, ``invites the Turkish government to open negotiations with the Republic of Armenia, restore diplomatic relations and trade between the two countries, placing an end to the blockade currently in place.'' The Chamber of Deputies therefore urges the Italian Government, in concordance with the proposals described above, to pursue energetically the easing of all tensions between peoples and minorities in that area, [i.e. the Caucasus], in order to create, with due observance of the territorial integrity of the two states, pacific coexistence and respect for human rights, thereby expediting a more rapid integration of Turkey within the European Community.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, despite years of record economic expansion, there are storm clouds gathering on the horizon. One of those dark clouds is American energy policy, which for the last 8 years has been, in effect, an anti-energy policy, thwarting domestic energy supplies and driving up costs with needless regulations. As winter sets in, natural gas and crude oil prices are at record levels and it is the American worker who must shoulder these increases. As Governor Bush points out, we need to unite across party lines and work together for the American people. Formulating a new domestic energy policy is a perfect place to start. Together we can ensure that new energy technologies receive proper R&D funding. We can reduce our over-reliance on foreign oil through environmentally sound domestic production. We can reduce pollution without resorting to flawed emissions trading schemes; and we can combine forces to see that clean coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro continue to provide the reliable and safe energy that drives the U.S. economy.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I commend Mr. George W. Kuhn of West Bloomfield, MI, on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Kuhn has a long and distinguished career as a public servant in Michigan. I have known George for many years now. His good nature, dedication, and enthusiasm for his work are phenomenal. He is a trusted and dedicated individual who has much to be proud of as he enters his retirement years. George Kuhn was born in Detroit in 1925, one of eleven siblings, to Dr. and Mrs. Charles and Ella Kuhn. His education spanned Albion College, Central Michigan University, Harvard, Wayne State, and the University of Michigan. George has accomplished much in his life, including several years as an employee of the Ford Motor Company and many more years of public service in southeastern Michigan. George Kuhn proudly served his nation as an officer in the United States Navy during both World War II and the Korean Conflict. He retired with the rank of Navy Captain after 40 years of active and reserve service. George served as Councilman and Mayor of Berkley, MI, during the 1950's and 1960's. He was elected a Michigan State Senator in 1966 and rose to become the Michigan Senate Whip in 1970. George has given many years of tireless dedication to the Republican Party in Michigan. Since 1972, George has diligently served as the Oakland County Drain Commissioner. He has been re-elected to that post seven times. George has been instrumental in developing and bringing to fruition the Twelve-Towns Drain Project. So much so, that the project now bears his name. The George W. Kuhn Drain is vitally important to prevent flooding for residents in Oakland County. Coinciding with his 28 years as Drain Commissioner, George has been an active member of the Oakland County Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with the citizens of Oakland County in congratulating and honoring George Kuhn for his many years of service and devotion to the people of Michigan. I am glad to have known George these many years and I wish him, his wife Doris, and all of his family, my heartfelt congratulations on his retirement and I thank him for his many years of public service to Michigan and to the Nation.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the respected representative of Nebraska's Third Congressional District, the Honorable Bill Barrett, is retiring from this House at the end of the 106th Congress. Bill has served five productive and distinguished terms in this House. I know that Bill's presence here in Congress will be sorely missed. I wish Bill the best of luck in the coming years. The gain of Lexington, Nebraska is a loss for this body and the American people. Bill Barrett was elected in 1990 and his constituents have sent him back every election since, and by resounding margins I might add. As Chairman of the Farm Commodities, Resource Conservation and Credit Agriculture Subcommittee, Bill has served not only the needs of his mainly rural Nebraska constituents, but the needs of farmers across the nation. In 1996 Bill was instrumental in passing the Federal Agriculture Improvement Reform Act or FAIR Act--legislation authorizing the majority of U.S. agricultural programs until 2002. And Bill has been a leader in his efforts to improve education in rural communities across the United States, particularly as a respected Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Bill's hard work and dedication on Agricultural matters will be missed, he leaves some very large shoes to fill come January. Then there is the matter of our resemblance. Some have claimed that Bill and I are similar in appearance. To compound matters even further, there is a third Member, Tom Ewing of Illinois--and Tom is also retiring this year--who is said to share our resemblance. Well, I can't say for certain which of the three of us gets the better end of that comparison, but I do know that I wouldn't mind being confused for Bill Barrett when it comes to this enthusiasm for smaller, more efficient government. Since helping to bring a Republican majority to Congress in 1994, Bill Barrett has been a steadfast voice in bringing fiscal responsibility back to the federal budget process. His efforts to ensure a balanced budget and to restrain federal spending over the past ten years have been instrumental in bringing about the budget surplus that we enjoy today. That is something that Bill can be very proud of during this retirement years. I've known Bill and Elsie since I was first elected to this House in 1992. Bill quickly became a trusted friend, one who could always be counted on to provide clear and useful information, wise insight, and good, solid counsel. To a freshman Member of Congress in 1992, Bill's friendship and wisdom meant a great deal to me. It still does. I place the highest value on that friendship. I wish Bill and his family heartfelt congratulations on his retirement and I thank him for his many years of public service to America.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, how much is enough indeed, Mr. Speaker? The Clinton-Gore administration keeps asking for more and more and more from the American people, more and more in the way of money for their liberal special interests; billions and billions of dollars, in fact. But as if that were not bad enough, the Clinton and Gore administration demand to take even more of America's freedoms. They take and they take and they take. Their big government philosophy crowds out room for our freedoms. Let me just give one timely example from this past month. The Clinton and Gore administration want to take away our freedom to select washing machines, air conditioners, and heat pumps and to force us to pay hundreds of dollars more for products that we refuse to buy. They proposed that rule just last month on October 5, 2000, which would steal that much more of our liberty. How much is enough? When the big hand of the Federal Government opens the door to our homes and invites itself in, it is time to say enough is enough.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, over the last few years, the extreme green have colluded with appliance manufacturers, with the rubber stamp of the Department of Energy. This collusion, if left unchecked, will erode the free marketplace, and it would eliminate consumer choice. I am talking about the DOE's recent decision to propose mandates for clothes washers. On October 5, the Department of Energy rolled out its latest tome of regulations on American household appliances. Their proposed mandate would require that consumers buy clothes washers that are available now but which consumers refuse as a rule to buy. Those requirements mean only one thing, that the type of washing machine in tens of millions of American homes will soon become a thing of the past. It means that the reliable, affordable, effective washers to which we are all accustomed will have to be replaced. The Department of Energy, the appliance manufacturers, and a handful of extreme special interest groups together wrote this new mandate. They left out a few people: the consumers and the taxpayers. In my opinion, the consumers and the taxpayers are the biggest stakeholders when it comes to home appliances. They are the ones who have to shell out their hard-earned money when their washer breaks down. Unfortunately, it is the 81 million owners of washing machines in homes across the U.S. who were the only ones left out of this decision. The average American family is not yet even aware of the proposed mandate. Mr. Speaker, how many working families do we know who come home after a long day at the office to sit down and read the tedious technical Federal Register every day? I can assure the Speaker, not very many. It is for exactly this reason I am raising this issue, to make the public aware of the flawed regulations coming out of the DOE. Not only is the Federal government going to take away their choice in the marketplace, but to add insult to injury, it is going to force them to shoulder the inordinate additional cost of meeting the new mandate. I do not know how many Members of Congress have been out shopping for a front-loading washing machine lately, but if they had, they would come in with a clear case of sticker shock. Many models meeting the proposed efficiency levels are well over $1,000; yes, I said over $1,000. Compare that to the typical top-loading machine that sells for around $400. Even by the scantest DOE calculation, the consumer will have to part with at least $240 extra for washers that meet this new requirement. All told, that adds up to over $1,000 more per household. Again, those are the low estimates. The administration's own analysis shows that millions of customers and consumers will never be able to recoup the higher prices. Low- income households, households with fewer occupants, such as senior citizens living alone who use washers less frequently, and those households in areas where energy costs will be disproportionately higher are the ones most affected. Those who can least afford it are unlikely to recover the additional cost that is required. Then, after having to pay hundreds more at the appliance showroom, the proposal provides for the manufacturers to recoup millions of taxpayer dollars. Let us get this straight. That is right, the back- room deal includes $60 million per manufacturer in tax breaks, tax breaks for the manufacturers, not for the consumers. Mr. Speaker, several points need to be made concerning these proposed regulations. First, the regulation would hurt working families by severely limiting what type of clothes washers, and it also includes air conditioning and heat pumps, can be purchased. It forces homeowners to buy products they have shown they do not like. Front loading machines make up less than 10 percent of current washer sales. The special interest groups have even publicly stated that American consumers simply do not want this type of washer. Let me quote for my colleagues what some of the appliance manufacturers have said, I am quoting, ``selling in the marketplace is easy if there's a standard in place. It's not a matter, necessarily, of consumer acceptance.'' Another executive from the appliance industry claims, and I am quoting, ``Federal standards provide the only meaningful route to appropriately higher energy efficiency for appliances.'' Here is where it gets downright sad. Taxpayer dollars are being spent for outlandish trumpeting public relations events the new mandates. The examples include tax dollars spent on a few country western music series to promote the regulations and also to give away free washing machines. Who do you suppose pays for those? Try the Department of Energy. Back in May, May 23, the Department of Energy stated that the new regulations would be proposed in June of 2000. Finally, in October, DOE got around to publishing the proposal with a deadline for public comment only 60 days later. It would appear after months of bureaucratic delay, the Energy Department now appears in a rush to regulate. Secretary Bill Richardson said that the department is, I quote, ``on a rush to establish a legacy.'' The Department has done the absolute minimum it can do to allow the people's voice to be heard by setting the minimum comment period of 60 days. That is why I introduced legislation to extend the public comment period to 120 days. I ask for consideration from all of my colleagues. I have over 20 cosponsors at the present time. Please, come on board, support a common sense bill. Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, the ``Extreme Green'' have colluded with appliance manufacturers with the rubber stamp of the Department of Energy. This collusion, if left unchecked, will erode the free marketplace and eliminates consumer choice. I am talking about DOE's recent decision to propose mandates for clothes washers. On October 5, the Department of Energy rolled out its latest tome of regulations on American household appliances. Their proposed mandate would require that consumers buy clothes washers that are available now, but which consumers refuse, as a rule, to buy. Well, those requirements mean only one thing--that the type of washing machine in tens of millions of American homes, will soon become a thing of the past. It means that the reliable, affordable, effective washers to which we are all accustomed, will have to be replaced. The Department of Energy, the appliance manufacturers and a handful of ``extreme'' special interest groups together wrote the new mandate. They left out a few people--the consumers and the taxpayers. Well, in my opinion, the consumers and taxpayers are the biggest ``stakeholders'' when it comes to home appliances. They're the ones who have to shell out their hard-earned money when their washer breaks down. Unfortunately, it is the 81 million owners of washing machines in homes across the United States who were the only ones left out of this decision. The average American family is not yet even aware of the proposed mandate. Mr. Speaker, how many working families do you know that come home after a long day at the office and sit down to read the tediously technical Federal Register every day? I can assure you--not many. It is for exactly this reason that I am raising this issue, Mr. Speaker, to make the public aware of the flawed regulations coming out of DOE. Not only is the Federal Government going to take away their choice in the marketplace, but to add insult to injury, it is going to force them to shoulder the inordinate additional cost of meeting the new mandate. I don't know how many Members of Congress have been out shopping for a front-loading washing machine lately. But if they had, they would have come home with a clear case of sticker-shock. Many models meeting the proposed efficiency levels are well over $1,000. Yes, I said over $1,000 for a home washing machine. Compare that to the typical top- loading machine that sell for under $400. Even by the scantest DOE calculation, the consumer will have to part with at least $240 extra for washers that meet the new requirements. When it comes to the regulations on new air conditioners and heat pumps, the additional initial costs are estimated to be at least $274 and $486 respectively. All told that adds up to over a thousand more dollars per household. Again, those are the low estimates. The administration's own analyses show that millions of consumers will never be able to recoup the higher cost. Low-income households, households with fewer occupants--such as senior citizens living alone--who use washers less frequently, and those households in areas where energy costs will be disproportionately harmed. Those who can least afford it are unlikely to ever recover the added additional cost. Purchasing a new washer, air conditioner, or heat pump for one's home or apartment is not a trival matter. These appliances cost several hundred dollars and the purchase is typically required with little if any ability to plan for such a large expenditure. Now the administration is making such a purchase much more expensive and eliminating consumer choice in the process. Then, after having to pay hundreds more at the appliance showroom, the proposal provides for the manufacturers to recoup millions of taxpayer dollars. That's right--back-room deal includes $60 million per manufacturer in tax breaks. Tax breaks for manufacturers--not the consumers. This new tax shelter for appliance manufacturers means that the U.S. taxpayer carries an even larger share of the Federal tax burden in addition to the higher appliance costs. In crafting their backroom deal, the special interests--these so- called joint stakeholders--decided that U.S. consumers and taxpayers would gladly accept their decision. I for one, don't think they should. America was founded upon the fundamental principles of freedom. Freedom to choose our words, freedom to choose the type and location of where we work, and the freedom to make individual choices in a free an open marketplace. Government should not be in the business of regulation, for the sake of regulation. Too many Washington bureaucrats and lobbyists are spending too much of the taxpyaers money on needless regulations. Mr. Speaker, several points need to be made concerning these proposed regulations. First, the regulation would hurt working Americans by severely limiting what type of clothes washers, air conditioning, and heat pumps can be purchased. It forces homeowners to buy products that they have shown that they don't like. Front loading machines make up less than 10 percent of current washer sales. They are available out there in the marketplace, the simple fact is that the consumer doesn't want to buy them. The special interest groups have even publicly stated that American consumers simply don't want this type of washer. Let me quote for you what some of the appliance manufacturers have said. ``. . . selling it in the marketplace is easy if there's a standard in place. Its not a matter, necessary, of consumer acceptance.'' Another executive from the appliance industry claims, ``. . . Federal standards provide the only meaningful route to appropriated higher energy efficiency for appliances, because consumers have historically shown a disinclination to pay more for products that are more environmentally friends. That is true even when the total cost of owning and operating such products is less than that of current models.'' Now here is where it gets downright sad. Taxpayer dollars are being spent for outlandish public relations event trumpeting the new mandates. The examples include tax dollars spent on a free country/ western music concert series to promote the regulations and also to give away free washing machines to the people in Bern, Kansas, and Reading, Massachusetts to promote the front-loading washers. Mr. Speaker, back on May 23, 2000, the Department of Energy stated that the new regulations would be proposed in June 2000. Finally in October, DOE gets around to publishing the proposal with a deadline for public comment only 60 days later. It would appear that after months of bureaucratic delay, the Energy Department now appears in a rush to regulate. Secretary Bill Richardson has been stated that the Department is ``on a rush to establish a . . . legacy.'' The Department has done the absolute minimum it can to allow the people's voice to be heard by setting the minimum comment period of 60 days. Working Americans should not suffer as a result of gross bureaucratic delays and ineptitude. Americans should not have their input limited as a result of bureaucrats rushing through midnight regulations before the close of this administration. The Department has given Congress and the American people virtually no time to examine the new rules. The people deserve more time than the minimum to defend our rights. That is why I have introduced legislation to extend this public comment period and to defend the people's right to fully participate in government and to retain some measure of control over own lives against an insatiable administration, seeking ever-greater powers over them. My bill would extend the public comment period on the flawed regulatory proposals pertaining to clothes washers, air conditioners, and heat pumps. I am proud that a bipartisan group of now over 20 esteemed colleagues have now joined me in my efforts. Americans should be granted more than the absolute minimum 60 days allowed by law. The special interest groups had several years to craft this new mandate--the people need more than 2 months to respond. The special interest groups exploit the disparity to tread on the will of the people. This bill seeks to rectify that disparity and to protect the best interests of the people. All the elements for a comment extension are present. Nearly all American families are directly and substantially affected, the inclinations and desires of the people are thwarted, the cost increase of the mandate is high--more than doubling costs in some cases, and a last minute rush for ``Midnight Regulation'' is being pursued by the administration. Apart from the higher cost and reduced freedom of choice, the Administration has not been fair to consumers and taxpayers during the development of the standards. DOE is supposed to disclose potential standards and impact analyses in a public process. Instead it bases its regulatory decisions on proposals submitted by special interest groups meeting in backrooms. Persons and groups who normally would speak to-- and defend--the interests of consumers and taxpayers, and who have in years past been invited to participate, have been excluded. Congress must assure that consumers are protected against faulty administration regulations. A public comment period of 120 days is required, given that the public has been largely excluded from the entire rulemaking process. This additional time will allow a thorough review and evaluation and a proper determination that has the consumers best interests in mind. I urge all Members to join me and fight to stop the erosion of the free marketplace and to prevent the elimination of consumer choice.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I submit legislation to save Americans' opportunities and to embrace Americans' judgment and freedom. This legislation defends the people's right to fully participate in government and to retain some measure of control over our own lives against this insatiable Administration, ever seeking greater powers over us, the people. My bill extends the public comment period on the flawed regulatory proposals pertaining to clothes washers, air conditioners and heat pumps. I am proud that a bipartisan group of fifteen esteemed colleagues join with me as original cosponsors of the bill. The bill will ensure that the voice of America's working people is heard. The special interests left the American consumers and taxpayers out of the backroom scam. The American family and the working people are being asked to bear the burden of these proposed regulations. The average American family is not yet aware of the proposed mandate. They have not been informed of the cost they will be asked to shoulder--over one thousand dollars in total per household according to the scant government estimates. They have not been told of the loss of consumer choice that these intrusive regulations would entail. Today's struggle hits American families where we live, in our homes. 1. The proposed mandate would hurt working Americans by severely limiting our options of clothes washers, air conditioning, and heat pumps. 2. Worse yet, the proposed mandate would force us against our will to buy products that we refuse to buy. 3. It gets still worse--we will have to pay hundreds of dollars more per product--paying as much as five times the cost of the product we currently select. 4. It gets even worse--the special interest groups know and have publicly stated that they know the American people don't want these products. 5. No, we're not done yet. The special interest groups themselves wrote the mandate! 6. Consumers and taxpayers were not represented. 7. In a backroom scam to benefit themselves, the special interest groups took an oath to work together purposefully to the detriment of consumer selection and to subjugate the will of the people. 8. Is there no end to the hypocrisy? A key part of the scam includes taking hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over and above taking hundreds of millions of consumer dollars. That's right--the scam includes 60 million dollars per manufacturer in tax breaks over and above the hundreds of millions of dollars per manufacturer in increased revenue forcibly taken from the purchasers in sales of the products. 9. Worse yet, the U.S. government colluded with the special interests and the U.S. Department of Energy has rubber stamped the mandate that the special interests concocted. 10. On top of all that, taxpayer dollars are being used in egregious public relations for the mandate against the people's will. Specifically, our tax dollars are being used for a free country/western music concert series to promote the mandate. Also, our tax dollars are being used to give away free washing machines to the people in Bern, Kansas, and Reading, Massachusetts as a promotion for the mandate. Americans are not able to respond without additional time over and above the absolute minimum 60 days allowed by law. American working families are not equipped to read the voluminous and tediously technical Federal Register each day. In contrast, the special interest groups have fleets of lobbyists and computers and lawyers to comb through and analyze on a daily basis the regulatory proposals that affect them. The special interest groups exploit the disparity to tread on the will of the people. Well, sixteen of us Members of Congress have already taken up the ``Don't Tread on Me'' flag and more will join us. A real issue here is the rush to regulate. Secretary Bill Richardson stated the Department is ``on a rush to establish a . . . legacy.'' The Department has done the absolute minimum it can to allow the people's voice to be heard by setting the minimum comment period of 60 days. The Department has given Congress virtually no time to act, just proposing the regulation on October 5, 2000. we the people deserve more time than the minimum to defend our will. This situation is exactly the type in which more time for people's comments is in order. All the elements for a comment extension are present here: 1. Virtually all American families are affected by the mandate; 2. The burden of regulations affects the American people so directly; 3. The inclination of the American people is thwarted by the mandate; 4. These mandated products are available now and people, as a rule, refuse to purchase them; 5. The cost increase of the mandate is so high, more than doubling the cost in many cases; 6. A last-minute rush to regulate has been admitted by the Secretary; 7. Having stated on May 23, 2000, that the rule would be proposed in June of 2000, the Department of Energy is grossly behind schedule with an October 5, 2000 publishing of the proposal; 8. Working Americans should not suffer as a result of gross bureaucratic delays and ineptitude, thus we Americans should not have our comment limited as a result of bureaucrats rushing to make up for their administrative problems and errors; and 9. American families do not have the luxury to read the Federal Register daily. We are here to represent Americans' interests in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. When it comes to clothes washers, these regulations will impact the vast majority of households in America--over 81 million households. The Administration's own analyses show that millions of consumers will never be able to recoup the higher cost. Low-income households, households with fewer occupants--such as senior citizens living alone-- who use washers less frequently, and those households in areas where energy costs are disproportionately harmed. Purchasing a new washer, air conditioner or heat pump for one's home or apartment is not a trivial matter. Several hundred dollars must be parted with, typically with little if any ability to plan for such a large expenditure. Now the Administration is making such a purchase much more expensive and in the process eliminating consumer choice. Even according to the most favorable determinations, the cost of a new washing machine will increase by at least an extra $240. In viewing available costs for front-loading machines, that number appears quite low. Several of the front loading machines are actually twice the cost of a standard top-loader and in some instances cost over $1000. When it comes to new air conditioners and heat pumps, the added initial costs are estimated to be at least $274 and $486 respectively. Keep in mind that these products are available now and the people refuse, as a rule, to purchase them. Apart from the higher cost and reduced freedom of choice, the Administration has not been fair to consumers and taxpayers during the development of the standards. DoE is supposed to disclose potential standards and impact analyses in a public process. Instead it bases its regulatory decisions on proposals submitted by special interest groups meeting in backrooms. Persons and groups who normally would speak to and defend the interests of consumers and taxpayers, and who have in years past been invited to participate, have been excluded. Under the clothes washer standards, the agreement reached by the special interest groups and submitted to DoE on July 27, 2000 demonstrates that the interests of consumers and taxpayers are not represented. Not only would the proposed standards impose huge additional costs, but also the ``joint stakeholders'' have proposed and agreed to lobby jointly for massive new tax credits for appliance manufacturers for each energy-efficient appliance that they produce. Up to $100 per new unit manufactured with a cumulative of up to $60 million per manufacturer. This new tax shelter for appliance manufacturers means that the U.S. taxpayer carries an even larger share of the federal tax burden in addition to the higher appliance costs. Congress must assure that consumers are protected against faulty Administration regulations. A public comment period of 120 days more is necessary, given that the public has been largely excluded from the rulemaking process. This time will allow a thorough review and evaluation to be conducted and a proper determination as to whether consumers interests are being protected.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, our Federal Government's approach to energy reminds me of the teenager that has a number of intense priorities--none of which involve filling the family car up with gas. As recent sharp increases in prices for gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, and electricity, and regional fuel shortages indicate, the United States is running on empty and no one wants to pull over and fill up the tank. In fact, running out of gas appears to be an affirmative policy of the regulatory and land-use agencies of this administration. During the past decade, the Federal Government has actively discouraged exploration, production, transportation and use of conventional energy sources. The sudden increase in energy costs and reliability problems are symptomatic of a fundamentally flawed federal energy policy with serious adverse economic consequences that are only beginning to bubble to the surface. Although the Congress protected the public from their ill-conceived Clinton/Gore Btu-tax early in their administration, Clinton and Gore appear to have achieved their anti- people goals through restrictions on energy production and use through the back door. By using the regulatory powers of the Federal agencies, the Clinton/Gore administration has increased the price of energy to all Americans. How quickly some have forgotten the lessons of the recent past such as the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970's. My district in Michigan has many small and large businesses that support the automobile-manufacturing sector. I am very aware of how energy costs affect not just the economy, but the very prosperity so many working Americans have been enjoying. Our prosperity, and particularly the driving force of our prosperity, the manufacturing sector, which generated almost 30 percent of growth of the gross domestic product and was pivotal in creating 22 million new jobs in the 1990's, is still dependent on adequate and reliable energy supplies at internationally competitive prices. And the current situation is not good. The loss of 133,000 net manufacturing jobs in a broad range of industries in August, and another 66,000 lost jobs in September, is primarily due to higher energy costs. Because firms cannot raise prices in this competitive environment, they must respond to higher energy costs by reducing costs elsewhere. Despite the high value that is placed on American workers, sometimes they become the victims of bad federal energy policy. To maintain affordable energy supplies, all sources of energy need to be on the table. Unfortunately, the Clinton/Gore administration has been encouraging only the politically correct arrows in our energy supply quiver: conservation, non-hydro renewables and, as ``transition'' fuel, natural gas. This is an detrimental and dangerous energy strategy. Instead, in addition to continuing efforts to encourage energy efficient choices and develop alternative energy sources, increasing the supply of all conventional energy sources remains critical for sustained economic growth. Currently, the most glaring policy disconnect is between the projections of natural gas demand over the next decade compared with supply realities. Some of the most promising energy efficiency technologies--combined cycle gas turbines and this generation of fuel cells--require natural gas. Several organizations, including the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the National Petroleum Council, predict there will be approximately a 30 percent increase in the use of natural gas over the next 10 to 15 years. Yet U.S. natural gas production has remained stagnant for the past 6 years. Canada already has increased its exports to the U.S. by more than More importantly half of American households depend on natural gas for heating. The American Gas Association estimates that their bills this winter will increase at least 40 percent over last year, and that is if we have an average winter. In addition, our economic prosperity itself is also in jeopardy. The tens of millions of working Americans who depend on natural gas for space heating, process energy, and product feedstocks, are finding the spot prices for natural gas increasing 2 to 3 times over what it was in January of this year. For many energy intensive businesses, such a those that support America's automobile manufacturing sector, this is a very serious matter. And this pain, this crisis, is largely the result of the Clinton/Gore policies of the past eight years. The Clinton/Gore administration has systematically denied access to natural gas resources and discouraged adding natural gas infrastructure to bring natural gas to market. The irony is that everyone knows where there is plenty of natural gas, but federal policies do not allow it to be developed. The Outer Continental Shelf and the multiple-use public lands on the Eastern Slope of the Rocky Mountains contain trillions of cubic feet of natural gas reserves that cannot be produced due to moratoria or numerous Clinton/Gore policies and regulatory actions that impede or prevent their development and production. And natural gas is just one energy source that suffers from federal policies. Coal and oil resources are similarly being locked up by federal land use restrictions on multiple-use lands. Only one new base- load coal plant and two expansion units have been built since the late 1980's, and none since 1996. No new major oil refinery has been built in 25 years. We haven't started construction on a nuclear plant in a decade, and no major hydroelectric dam has been built in memory. Moreover, federal policies have actively discouraged continued operation of even existing energy facilities. For example, the relicensing schedule for hydroelectric dams is an inexcusable eight years. It seems that, for the current administration, atrophy and diminishment are the only energy policies they'll consider, as indicated by their support of the flawed Kyoto Protocol, which would use international pressure to coerce Americans into massive cuts in fossil fuel use. Unconstitutionally, this treaty has never ever been submitted to the U.S. Senate for consent, and the Clinton/Gore administration has indicated no intention of ever submitting the resolution to the Senate. To negotiate a treaty against the advice of the U.S. Senate and to have no intention of ever submitting the treaty to the Senate for consent is blatantly and flagrantly unconstitutional. Via the Kyoto Protocol, the Clinton/Gore administration would commit the United States to what amounts to a 31 percent reduction in fossil energy use over levels otherwise projected by 2010. I oppose the attempts by the federal agencies to implement the protocol without Senate ratification and without implementing legislation. I thank my colleagues who have continued to support reasonable limitations on the Federal agencies that have forgotten how fundamentally important an adequate supply of energy is to our economic and social well-being. I would like to introduce into the Record a resolution by the Board of Directors of the National Association of Manufacturers expressing their concern for current energy supply policies. This resolution, which the NAM Board adopted earlier this month, notes that in order to sustain economic growth, this country must have adequate supplies of energy at internationally competitive prices. I agree with their analysis that all energy options must be on the table for us to maintain and grow our economy, and that energy supply considerations must be part of the overall federal regulatory policy. I commend the attention of my colleagues to the NAM resolution. Mr. Speaker, I submit the NAM resolution be inserted in the Record at this point. Resolution of Concern Over Energy Supply Policies An adequate and secure energy supply at globally competitive prices is necessary for the nation's economic growth. The NAM--and its more than 14,000 member companies and associations, including 10,000 small and mid-sized manufacturers--supports the development of markets and policies that provide adequate, reliable and competitively priced energy resources with minimal government intervention. The NAM understands the critical importance of an economically viable mix of energy sources, consistent with prudent environmental policies. The NAM is concerned that current federal policies are at odds with the fundamental need to maintain adequate future energy supplies for the economy and the welfare of the American people. Overall, U.S. manufacturers continue to strive for improved efficiency in the competitive world marketplace, including increasing energy efficiency. The remarkable productivity gains of this past decade however, have tended to raise energy use. Simultaneously increasing productivity and energy efficiency in the face of foreign competitive pressures has required developing and installing innovative equipment and processes in all aspects of the manufacturing sector. Despite manufacturers' ongoing investments to increase energy efficiency, and federal and private efforts to develop economically viable alternative sources, increasing the supply of traditional energy sources remains critical in order to sustain economic growth. For example, the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf should be opened for environmentally responsible oil and gas production. With respect to electricity, federal legislation should be enacted that would strengthen reliability and efficiency of supply, and facilitate wholesale and retail competition as soon as possible. Energy warning signs are not just flashing because of this past summer's regional electricity disruptions. Also this year, the United States has been experiencing tight supplies of natural gas and transportation fuels, and the Department of Energy has even announced plans to dip into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve out of concern for heating oil prices this winter. The drastic step of withdrawing oil from the SPR is a wake-up call that current federal policies are jeopardizing economic growth and prosperity. The current Administration has created an unbalanced national energy policy by focusing only on energy efficiency, natural gas and non-traditional energy sources, while limiting the development and use of other energy sources. There are limits to how much energy-efficiency measures and alternative energy sources--some of which remain of speculative economic viability--can contribute to meeting the energy requirements of our growing nation. Of particular concern is the policy disconnect between projections of increases in natural gas consumption to meet new energy demands, contrasted with current federal policies that discourage the production and delivery of new natural gas supplies. If federal policies will not allow more natural gas to be produced and delivered, then natural gas will not be able to fulfill its potential to sustain economic growth. By undermining the development of domestic oil, gas, nuclear, coal and hydroelectric power, this Administration has created ``supply-side'' disincentives that add up to what is essentially a policy of planned energy dependence by the United States on foreign sources. Historically, the federal government has caused enormous economic waste when it tries to pick ``winners'' and ``losers'' in the energy marketplace. It has also caused waste when its energy policies are not coordinated with other policy objectives or considered in the context of economic growth. Current federal policies that discourage energy supplies and distort energy consumption jeopardize economic growth. To meet the challenges of a growing population and increasing prosperity, while ensuring national security and environmental protection, America must fully utilize all of its energy options. The next Administration and Congress must make the availability of adequate supplies of reliable and competitively priced energy a national priority. As adopted by the NAM Board of Directors--October 4, 2000.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Act of 2000. It is a critical and timely piece of legislation. Positioned strategically amid vital shipping lanes, Singapore is one of the United States' closest, most strategically important friends in Southeast Asia. Singapore is the tenth largest export market for the United States. Literally thousands of Americans depend on exports to Singapore for their jobs. The U.S. is also the number one foreign investor in Singapore--with a total of $25 billion in 1999. There are more than 1,300 U.S. businesses with offices in Singapore and more than 13,000 U.S. citizens living in the multi-ethnic island nation. Singapore has established itself as the business hub for Southeast Asia and it is quickly becoming a hub for much of the rest of Asia. Not just in business, but also on vital national security issues, Singapore offers us a perspective on the region informed by kinship with its neighbors and its own history of development. It is a reliable source of stability in a region of the world undergoing generally positive, but sometimes wrenching political, economic, and societal change. The U.S. Western Pacific Logistics Command is based in Singapore, and Singapore and the U.S. conduct both joint air and joint naval exercises. Most recently, Singapore has undertaken to build a deep-water pier and naval base, entirely at their own expense, and offered its services to U.S. aircraft carriers. Singapore's trading regime in goods and services is the freest in Asia. The environment for foreign investment is inviting and the government is a helpful hand for Americans looking to make investments. Having said that, however, there are sectors where American companies are eager to compete. I am hopeful that a U.S.-Singapore trade agreement can both recognize the very free trade and investments relationship that exists and at the same time provide even greater opportunities for American business. A free trade agreement with Singapore is important for the international free trade agenda as well. The United States must continue to work to bring down barriers to trade throughout the world. Free traders in Congress have had some key victories this year with the Africa Free Trade Bill, the Caribbean Basin Initiative and PNTR for China. We all celebrated those victories, as well we should. However, an anti-trade element still exists in Congress that seeks to turn the political tide against free trade. It will take constant vigilance to build and sustain an active free trade constituency. It is my hope that progress on a Singapore agreement will lead to bi-lateral and multilateral agreements with other Pacific Rim countries that share our interest in opening markets. A U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement serves several key U.S. national interest. It supports U.S. jobs. It supports U.S. worldwide investment. It solidifies a vital trans-Pacific U.S. relationship. It will serve as a model for free trade agreements throughout the Pacific- Rim, and encourage the opening of consultations to this end. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the U.S. Singapore Free Trade Act of 2000 and I urge its passage into law.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I too rise this evening to pay tribute to Ron Packard, who I consider to be a distinguished statesman from the State of California, and on this occasion of his retirement at the end of the 106th Congress, I wish him well. I have known Ron and I have known his wife, Jean. I have not known the 7 children and, I believe, 34 grandchildren and the great grandchildren, but that will come. I have had the pleasure to travel with he and Jean on some CODELs, I would not say around the world, but certainly to various parts of the world, and we have had I think some very interesting experiences on those trips and I have gotten to know he and Jean. We find that his dedication to his family and to his church is very, very strong. It is unwavering. The fact that he is a dentist and that he moved from being a dentist into Congress is a little bit of a change, I guess, but others do the same from the field of medicine, so that is not so unusual. But he has made the change and he has done it, as somebody has already said, several members have mentioned the fact that he was only the fourth member, only the fourth in history to actually come to the House via the write- in process. I never believed anybody could get here by the write-in process, but Ron did. The residents of his district in southern California have seen fit to send him back to Washington, and by overwhelming majorities, every election since, back to 1982. I think well they should, because Ron Packard has been a respected and dedicated member of this House ever since. He has served his California constituents well. Not only that, he has served the Nation well, and that includes his service in the Navy and his time as the mayor of Carlsbad, California and, of course, the 18 years here in the House. As we know, Ron Packard is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water, and it has been my privilege to serve with him on that committee as well as on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for the past few years. He has also served, as we know, on the Subcommittee on Military Construction and the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, as well as his efforts on the Subcommittee on Transportation. I can assure my colleagues that the Energy and Water bill is no easy task, and let me say a little bit about why. It was only through Ron's tireless dedication and self sacrifice that made difficult matters appear mundane. Energy and Water runs the gamut of issues, hitting upon matters of national and energy security. That bill provides vital important funding for such items as the Nation's stockpile stewardship, Cold War weapons plant cleanup and energy supply, only to name a few. But here is the part that gets tough. It not only funds hundreds, even thousands, of local water priorities performed by the Corps of Engineers and conducted in just about every Member's district, and the member from California has brought balance, he has brought common sense in approaching the Energy and Water bill discussions during his tenure. In fact, this year, Ron Packard had to deal with some 3,000 requests. Now, those were not all Member requests, but a good many were and the rest came from a variety of sources. All of these have to come before the committee, all have to be dealt with. His hard work and dedication resulted in a timely and reasonable piece of legislation that covered all of those bases, and it took patience and it took thoughtfulness and it took courtesy, and he had all of those qualities to meet and deal with people and with their requests. Ron Packard's retirement will leave a set of shoes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to fill. Mr. Speaker, I think I echo the sentiments of all of the Members who have spoken here this evening in saying that this gentleman will certainly be missed. I am certain that Ron will make good use of his time in the coming months. I can only guess that golf courses around the country will be richer, will be the richer for it. Ron, congratulations to you and to Jean. Enjoy your retirement, and thank you very much.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this conference report, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this effective and responsible bill. The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) deserves extraordinary praise, I think, for his accessibility, his leadership, his thoughtfulness, his patience, his effectiveness, last of all, but most importantly. I would also like to extend congratulations to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I think the two of them, although it was difficult on some of the issues, work together very well. I do not want to forget the staff, and I am not going to start naming them, but the work that they have done is something that we should all be cheering about and saluting. There are many things in this bill that deserve to be highlighted. First, this bill provides important funding for countries in the Middle East to help support peace in that region. Now, at this most difficult time, this funding is as important as it has ever been. The United States has reiterated its support for Israel, Egypt and Jordan, countries which have successfully negotiated peace agreements, by providing significant economic and security assistance. I am pleased also that we have provided $35 million to help the people of Lebanon. I must point out that this money will not be sent to the Lebanese government; rather, this money will be used to expand the USAID program in Southern Lebanon, so that American NGOs, nongovernment organizations, will be able to directly provide services to the Lebanese people while monitoring the results of our efforts. The bill also provides important funding for countries of the former Soviet Union, including $90 million for our ally, Armenia. In addition, we are financing confidence-building measures for the countries of the Southern Caucasus to help build a foundation for peace among Armenia, Nagorno-Karabagh and Azerbaijan. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the cuts made to foreign military financing during consideration on the House floor have been restored. This funding is essential for our allies, such as the Baltic countries, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to support this bill, and the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, should again be commended for accommodating the Members of this body while crafting a very effective and responsible piece of legislation. I urge all Members to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute my friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Ewing. Like the rest of the Members of the House, I can say that Tom will be sorely missed when he leaves this body. Before I go any further, I must point out that Tom, myself, and Representative Bill Barrett all bear a resemblance to one another. It is not uncommon for colleagues to confuse us for one another. Colleagues often say such things as, ``Great job in the chair'' or ``Saw you on television--good job'' or some have approached me with an agriculture issue. The thing is, I wasn't even close to the chair, on television, or on a committee that deals with ag issues. In fact, I have been mistaken for Tom or Bill--and vice versa--so many times that it has become somewhat of an inside joke among the three of us. Actually, it has gotten so out of hand that people have started confusing whose wife is with whom. Now I've been married to my wife Sandie for 38 years, but Tom and Bill continually have people mistakenly ask them how their ``wife'' Sandie is. Of course, these people are making an honest mistake but, naturally, the three of us have only perpetuated it--sometimes when these people ask me how Connie or Elsie are doing, I'll kid around and answer them. And these guys are all too ready to return the favor when people ask them about Sandie. It's gotten so regular that one time Tom and Bill saw Sandie approaching in one of the hallways and Tom quipped to Bill, ``Look Bill, here comes our wife.'' Since Tom and Bill are moving on, I won't have anyone to get confused with anymore. I might start to get lonely. On a more serious note, Tom has been a good friend and a valuable Member of the House of Representatives. His experience--first as a lawmaker in the Illinois State House and then in this body--will be missed. His advice and level perspective will be notably absent. Sandie and I wish you and Connie health, happiness, and love as you enter the next phase of your lives.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is voting on House Concurrent Resolution 426 regarding the current violence in the Middle East. I believe it is appropriate for the United States to express solidarity with Israel, but it is with reluctance that I am voting in favor of this resolution. I am concerned about the timing and perception of this resolution. The United States has an essential role to play as facilitator of peace. The United States must be careful to encourage the peace process, and not detract from it. I am concerned this resolution may be perceived as placing entire blame for the violence on the Palestinian leadership. That is not the case, and I hope it will not be perceived in that way. In fact, in order to reach a long-lasting peace, both sides will eventually have to accept some responsibility for the current situation. I remain a strong supporter of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. But it is clear the demonstration by Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem's Old City was an ill-advised provocation. And there probably couldn't have been a worse time for a provocation. Mr. Sharon must have understood how his actions would be perceived. In fact, the Israeli government understood this danger, which is why they provided Mr. Sharon with a security force. At the same time, Chairman Arafat has clearly used Mr. Sharon's visit as an opportunity to drastically change the dynamics of the peace process. With the recent violence, including the desecration of the West Bank holy site of Joseph's Tomb, Mr. Arafat's ability and willingness to prevent violence and maintain peace throughout Palestinian controlled areas have come into serious question. On two occasions imprisoned Palestinian militants were released from jail. Although there have been some assurances made that these individuals are being rearrested, militant Palestinian organizations have disputed that, declaring most remain free. In addition, incitement to violence continues to be broadcast from Palestinian Authority radio and televisions stations. I am hopeful Mr. Arafat will have the ability and willingness to address these issues and restore calm and stability to the areas he is responsible for controlling. Now is the time for responsible leaders to call on their people to abandon violence as a means of achieving their goals. I am hopeful both leaders will work to restore stability to the region, condemn the use of violence and reiterate their commitment to the peace process. The violence must stop in order for the parties to re-engage in that process.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I rise today to discuss the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2001. As the distinguished Chairman knows, I authored report language to accompany H.R. 4733 that recommended the Department of Energy process Uranium-233 stored in Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Tennessee, in a manner that would retain and make available alpha-emitting isotopes for the development of a promising and innovative cancer therapy known as Alpha Particle Immunotherapy. Researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York view this therapy as a potential breakthrough treatment for numerous types of cancer, including acute myelogenous leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer. This innovative approach to treat cancer is highly valuable because of its ability to target cancer cells and its unique potency in killing them. In addition, API treats the cancer without causing some of the negative side effects associated with treatment, such as nausea, hair loss and general malaise. I am concerned by reports that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is unable to produce the medical isotopes needed to support the development of this extremely promising cancer therapy. We simply must execute this project for its potential to save lives and save money for the U.S. taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to take a moment to emphasize my intent in offering this language. Briefly, the intent of this language is to permit the Department of Energy to use the $15 million it has projected are needed for Building 3019 surveillance and maintenance costs to stabilize, dispose and deactivate all of the excess Uranium-233 in Building 3019 to enable the beneficial use of Uranium-233 for this breakthrough cancer treatment. In doing so, it is my intent that the Department of Energy would spend the $15 million to conduct routine surveillance and maintenance to control the stored material safely while at the same time blending-down the Uranium-233 to a radioactivity that eliminates safety and safeguards concerns, and extracting the radioactive isotope for cancer treatments. This approach would enable the Department of Energy to not only eliminate the nuclear criticality and vulnerability concerns at the Oak Ridge site, but would also provide the Department with the opportunity to take a leadership role in the worldwide effort to cure cancer. Again, I would like to point out that all of this could be accomplished within the existing DOE Building 3019 budget projections and potentially could provide life- cycle cost savings to the DOE and the American taxpayers of over $200 million. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Highly Enriched Uranium Vulnerability Assessment Report identified Building 3019 as one of the ten most hazardous facilities within the DOE complex. This risk increases as long as no action is taken to place the Uranium-233 in stabilized form. The language that I drafted attempts to correct this situation by enabling the Department of Energy through private sector stabilization, disposition and deactivation to expeditiously eliminate the concerns at the Oak Ridge site, while enhancing the accessibility of the Lab. This entire opportunity holds the potential to turn ``swords in plowshares'' by reindustrializing this nuclear liability into a humanitarian use. In addition, it offers significant national benefits, not only the primary ones to cancer patients and their families, but also benefits to the DOE and the Oak Ridge area as it would: Accelerate the disposition of this special nuclear material, reducing the long- term costs associated with its surveillance and maintenance; Begin addressing the State of Tennessee's concerns regarding the current U- 233 storage facility, which has been classified as one of the ten most hazardous facilities within the DOE complex; and Broaden the scope of reindustrialization initiatives in Oak Ridge, potentially creating manufacturing and research jobs. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the people of America and the world, particularly those suffering from cancer, to do whatever we can do to enable this breakthrough cancer treatment to move forward as quickly as possible. This concludes my remarks. I thank you again for allowing me to clarify the intent of this very important provision.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the conference report. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and certainly the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, Frank Cushing, the staff, all of the staff for their great work in bringing about an outstanding conference report. None of this would have happened without extraordinary work, a lot of hours. I know there have been many long hours, so I salute all of them for that great amount of effort and great contribution. This conference report responsibly provides a $1.3 billion increase for Veterans' Medical Health Care, a critical $30 million increase for Veterans' Medical and Prosthetics Research and responsible increases in the research-intensive agencies NASA and NSF. I am pleased that these and other funding priorities are in this bill and will be signed into law when this conference report lands on the President's desk. The 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair bill produced under most difficult circumstances. In fact, this 2001 Energy and Water spending bill, under the stewardship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), has been attached to this conference report. I am pleased that it, too, will be signed into law. This package holds the line on spending in a prudent manner and allows us to pay down the debt. The gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted for crafting this piece of legislation under those very difficult circumstances, and I think he and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have worked with our colleagues and certainly the colleagues in the other body to forge a fiscally responsible bill in a bipartisan spirit. This has been an unusual process this year because the other body did not consider the VA-HUD bill on the floor. Yet, it was negotiated in a bipartisan way with the White House fully engaged, and I am aware of no objections to this conference report. Mr. Speaker, the conference report is the fruit of all their labors, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for the families, friends and loved ones of the many, many children who pass away every year. Regardless of the cause of death, regardless of the location, regardless of the age, a horrendous void is created in the lives of those left behind. When a child dies, the effect is simply devastating to the family. For those of us who have not suffered this pain, it is incomprehensible and different for each person--a pain that may dampen in time, but which never fully goes away. However, there is one thing that the families and loved one of the departed have to help them in their time of need--the support of others who have suffered a similar loss. Those in the healing process report that one of the most effective measures is simply to have a strong network of support and encouragement. And this is why I have sponsored, along with Mr. Ose of California and Mr. McIntosh of Indiana, this resolution recognizing the purposes and goals of a National Children's Memorial Day. Such is the goal of the Compassionate Friends Organization--a national non-profit group that offers friendship and understanding to families grieving the death of a child at any stage of development and from any cause. As one example, Compassionate Friends offers comfort and assistance to families who suffer from the tragedy of stillbirth, miscarriage, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (S.I.D.S.). Their web site identifies symptoms of grief, notes impacts on marriage, discusses subsequent pregnancy, and has remarks about coping with family and friends and lays out some helpful suggestions. Compassionate Friends originated in England in 1969. Their first U.S. chapter was founded in 1972. They now have chapters in 24 countries and in every state in the nation--nearly 600 altogether. Their mission is simply to provide a supportive environment with no religious affiliation, no membership dues or fees, and services open to all bereaved family members. Compassionate Friends is the impetus for this resolution. I would like to salute in particular their Executive Director, Mrs. Pat Loder, a resident of Michigan's Eleventh Congressional District, my district. She has been a driving force behind National Children's Memorial Day, this year and in years past. I encourage you to visit the Compassionate Friends website at www.compassionatefriends.org and learn more about their organization. On December 10, Compassionate Friends will hold their fourth annual worldwide candle lighting event. Starting in New Zealand, candles will be lit for one hour beginning at 7 pm local time, creating a 24-hour observance around the globe. This simple act goes a long way to offer peace of mind and soul and goes a long way to help those who have lost a child, a grandchild, a sibling or a friend, particularly during the For the past two years, the Senate has recognized the second Sunday in December as National Children's Memorial Day. And last year the House passed a resolution similar to what we are considering here today. This concurrent resolution expresses the sense of Congress that a National Children's Memorial Day should be established and asks the President to issue a proclamation calling on Americans everywhere to observe ceremonies and activities which serve to remember these dearly departed souls and the grieving families and friends. I can assure you, to those families who have lost loved ones, the support that we show here, this simple and easy resolution will go a long way in helping them cope with their loss. It is important for families who have suffered such a loss to know that they are not alone. Please help me in passing this joint resolution and express your support for this worthy and noble cause. We carry the responsibility to honor and remember those who have died before their time. And as compassionate, concerned citizens, one of the best actions we can take is to honor the souls of the dearly departed and to support those who are left behind. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in passing this measure. Please show your support to bereaved parents across America.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the key to the American dream is a quality education. As Benjamin Franklin told us, ``Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.'' The hands-on education Franklin was talking about can only be found in our Nation's classrooms. This underscores the necessity of putting decision-making power in the hands of those closest to the children. Those are the local school teachers, the administrators, and, most importantly, the parents. The Republican education vision does just that, returning control to these local jurisdictions which are uniquely equipped to make the decisions on how to best involve our students. Since 1995 under the steady hand of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the Republican majority has repeatedly passed legislation to shift power and resources from the Washington bureaucracy into the hands of those closest to our students. Mr. Speaker, while education is at the forefront of public debate over the next few weeks, Republicans have a vision and a record that America can be proud of.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I accept that. Mr. Speaker, as I said a few short weeks ago, this is a good bill, and a good conference report. It is balanced and responsible. At a time when energy costs are hitting record levels and when water projects vital to the lives of American citizens are needed, we cannot sit idly by as the President would have us do. So I would just simply say that this bill is worthy of becoming law, and I believe that we have every reason in the world, as a Congress acting in this fashion, to override this veto because, frankly, it does not speak to the needs of the people. So I would just join in with those who have already spoken on behalf of overriding this veto by the President. I think it is a just bill, and I think it is proper that we do override this veto.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the President's veto of the 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and I urge each and every Member who voted in favor of the conference report 2 weeks ago to maintain their support for this legislation today. The administration appears to show a callousness toward the rural people who will be flooded. This callousness smells of the comments that the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) made earlier this year to the effect that the Democrats were writing off the rural areas, and I am quoting, ``to hell with the rural people,'' unquote, attitude. Well, the flooding of Missouri and several other States has in several recent years put Missourians and others through a sort of hell. I ask for some compassion and common sense here for these people. My other concern is about the trustworthiness of the administration. This very provision has been signed in the previous 4 years. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, one of our largest trading partners, the Republic of China on Taiwan, is celebrating its National Day today, October 10, 2000. I wish to join my colleagues in Congress and others throughout the world in commending President Chen Shi-bian and Ambassador C.J. Chen of the Republic of China as they continue to lead Taiwan to greater economic prosperity and fuller participation in international activities abroad. I am proud of Taiwan's economic and political accomplishments in recent years and am hopeful this success will continue for years to come. I join with my colleagues in Congress to wish President Chen Shui-bian and his people all the best as they prepare their National Day celebrations. Good luck and good cheer.