Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) very much for his great work. I, too, want to join my colleagues in extending to the gentleman the very best. Three words come to mind when I think of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) as to the style in which he operates, one is temperament and another patience and the third is attentiveness. The gentleman ranks high on all three of those. Again, my thanks also to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking Member and the staff that contributed so much to this bill. Let me just say that this is a good bill. It is a good conference report. It exercises a proper balance between spending for the Nation's important water, energy and national security projects while still maintaining adequate fiscal restraint. Furthermore, the bill sets aside a sizable amount of money, sizable amount of the budget surplus to go towards paying down the Federal debt. As we all know, the Nation is facing a period of exceptionally high energy prices. Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration has decided to tamper with our national security by releasing oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve instead of correcting what can only be called their antienergy policy of the last 8 years. Mr. Speaker, this measure takes some of the necessary steps toward bringing a proper balance to our national energy mix. It provides for a variety of important research and development projects that I hope will deliver some of the break-through technologies to fuel America's future energy needs. It is clear that electricity is the source that drives our burgeoning information economy, and we need to recognize that nuclear power now provides over one-fifth of our total electric demand. Along these lines, this bill provides vitally required funding for nuclear energy research under the NERI, the NEPO and the NEER programs; and it enhances the ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to perform its mission. And nuclear technology provides more than just power. Nuclear technology right now is being used to take excess weapons material and making it available for life-saving cancer treatment. It likewise keeps the Department of Energy on its path towards completing nuclear cleanup as some of the Nation's old cold war weapon sites by the year 2006, and it funds the development of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository. The measure also invests in fusion as a future energy source, and it addresses the need to bring ever-greater computing capabilities through the advanced scientific computing research initiative to our national laboratories and universities. Finally, in addition, the vital water infrastructure projects that the Corps of Engineers performs are, I believe, sufficiently addressed. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me the time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to energy prices and energy policy, the Clinton-Gore administration has failed the American people. National gas and crude oil prices are at record highs. It is the American people who bear the brunt of the administration's failures on their policies. The administration has prevented exploration of our largest domestic reserves along the coasts and in Alaska. They have strangled the capacity of American refineries with needless regulations to satisfy the goals of their extreme left wing. They have totally ignored and stifled the significant contributions of clean coal, hydroelectric and nuclear power. The Vice President even cast a deciding vote to increase gasoline taxes on consumers, directly in line with his outrageous book, Earth in the Balance. Now just a few weeks before the election, the Clinton-Gore administration reverses itself and risks the national energy security by releasing oil from our strategic petroleum reserves. I urge the administration to stop the politics and provide a real and effective energy policy for the American people.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in a colloquy. Mr. Speaker, as we grapple with increasing oil and natural gas prices, we must realize that the administration's flawed 1997 Kyoto Protocol, if implemented, would effectively double our energy costs and sacrifice millions of American jobs. As the gentleman is aware, many people are deeply concerned over administration efforts to implement the protocol prior to Senate ratification as mandated by the Constitution. Section 315 of the NASA reauthorization legislation would provide $5 million for research on the carbon cycle and carbon sequestration. Sound scientific research on the mapping and monitoring of vegetation and its role in the carbon cycle is to be commended. However, modeling and research should not cross the line and delve into carbon trading.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his attention to this matter.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller) in rising to urge my colleagues to override the President's recent veto of marriage penalty relief. The Marriage Penalty Relief Act passed by significant margins in both the House and the Senate. It is overdue for tax relief to our middle- income families, who are dependent on two-wage earners, who are hardest hit by this penalty. It is especially hard on that second wage, often the wife's salary, because their income is taxed at higher marginal rates, often from 15 percent to 28 percent. You can see how tough it is. As the President makes up his long list of end-of-the-year spending priorities, let him remember and let us remember the 25 million married couples who are struggling to make ends meet. Instead of dedicating the surplus to more spending ideas and bigger government plans, we should return some of it to the American people who earned it, while continuing to pay down the debt. Let the American people decide for themselves what is best and what is best for their families, not a politician in Washington.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the Estate tax is one of the most egregious examples of bad tax policy in Washington. It's unfair, unseemly and economically unsound. Under the guise of making the rich pay their fair share, the death tax has a negative impact on the economy and hurts ordinary Americans. Ironically, those most affected by the death tax are not the wealthy, who have resources to shelter their assets as well as incentive to simply spend their wealth while they are alive but family owned businesses. The death tax is one of the major reasons businesses don't survive because owners are forced to sell their businesses in order to pay the tax. Less than half of all family owned businesses survive the death of a founder and only 5% survive to the third generation. The death tax forces businesses to divert money from productive uses such as capital investment and job creation to estate planning. Sixty percent of small businesses owners report they would create new jobs over their coming year if estate taxes were eliminated. With the nation's savings rate at a record low, we should be encouraging savings, not punishing it. Americans should not be taxed for working hard to pass their wealth on to their children so that they may have a better life. This legislation will help the American people and the American economy. I urge the President to reconsider and sign this bill into law.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that makes the United States a unique country, it is our idea that anyone with a strong work ethic can succeed in America. For over 100 years, men and women have emigrated to this country to take advantage of the tangible ideal we call the American Dream. Not surprisingly, the Internal Revenue Service is taxing the American Dream into the grave with a mean-spirited provision called the death tax. The death tax hurts average Americans who cannot afford to pay high- price lawyers to settle their affairs. As a result, 70 percent of small businesses do not survive into the second generation. That is totally unfair. This Congress passed a bill to repeal the onerous death tax. Regrettably, the Clinton-Gore administration vetoed it. Let us show the Clinton-Gore administration that the American dream is still alive. I urge my colleagues to support overriding the death tax veto.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for yielding me this time. I want to begin also by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for his valuable assistance as well; and I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) being with us during this debate today. I rise to pay much deserved tribute to Congressman William S. Broomfield who is so endearing and personable that he was known to his constituents simply as Bill. And Bill Broomfield is here with us today. I stand before the House as the sponsor of H.R. 4884, legislation that has been described as naming the post office building at 200 West Second Street in Royal Oak, Michigan in honor of my friend and predecessor. I am pleased to report to my colleagues that the entire Michigan House delegation has not only signed on as cosponsors but as original cosponsors of this bill. Madam Speaker, Bill Broomfield is so well respected by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle that both Republicans and Democrats stand together to honor this fine man. As was mentioned, Bill Broomfield was born in Royal Oak, Michigan back in 1922; went on to Michigan State University, then known as Michigan State College; and he has been serving ably in the Michigan legislature and in Congress for, as has been mentioned, over 40 years. He was first elected to Congress in 1956, the same time as the second Eisenhower administration; and he did not stop serving his constituents until his retirement from this body in 1992, a span of 36 years. During his tenure, he served with eight different presidents. During his tenure, Bill Broomfield was the hallmark of bipartisanship and a self-defined consensus builder. He served as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, later named the International Relations Committee, where he helped craft America's foreign policy during the critical Cold War era. He served as the ranking member of this committee from the mid-1970s until his retirement from this body. He was also the point person in Congress for many of the foreign policy initiatives championed by Presidents Reagan and Bush. From Nicaragua to the Persian Gulf to Eastern Europe to North Korea, he led the charge in Congress for the foreign policy that ultimately won the Cold War. For this effort, Michiganders and Americans everywhere owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. The history books may credit Reagan and Bush with bringing down communism, but make no mistake, it should also mention Bill Broomfield in the same breath for his outstanding contribution to the effort that won the Cold War. Bill Broomfield was also a careful keeper of Congress's prerogatives in foreign policy. He made sure that the legislative branch of government fulfilled its constitutional duty and that the President consulted with lawmakers. For example, Mr. Broomfield ensured that President Bush would consult with Congress when the chief executive ordered a massive troop buildup in Saudi Arabia in response to Iraq's aggression in Kuwait. When President Bush did come to Congress, Bill Broomfield supported his efforts. He said, ``We must give the President the power he needs to convince Saddam that he has no other alternative.'' Think about all the changes in America that Bill Broomfield had the privilege of witnessing firsthand during his 36-year tenure in this body. He has seen the rise and fall of Soviet totalitarianism. He has seen man reach the Moon and Jim Crow fall. He helped move the U.S. post-war era economy to the brink of the technological revolution. As we move into the 21st century, we should not forget the legacy of those who helped us get there and Bill Broomfield was at the forefront of that crusade. Just because he retired from elective office did not mean that he stopped serving the public. In fact, he started a foundation that supports many causes and charities throughout southeast Michigan, including the Salvation Army and efforts for fighting cancer, Alzheimer's and spina bifida. Bill Broomfield is Royal Oak's favorite son and a true man of the people. He loves the people that he served for and they have love, admiration and respect for him. I also want to mention his devoted wife of so many years, Jane, who was so active in the community. From the middle of the Eisenhower era to the beginning of the Clinton administration, Bill Broomfield was a gentleman in every sense of the word and an example of everything that is good and decent in public service and this institution. Naming the post office in his hometown of Royal Oak is just one way we can pay tribute to this fine man. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the International Reserve Police Officer Association Exchange Program. This program provides a unique opportunity for reserve police officers from American cities and towns to share information and go on patrol with their counterparts in other nations. The Association allows for the open exchange of reserve policing concepts between countries and between individual reserve officers. This year marks the fifth year of the International Reserve Police Officer Association exchange program. Their 2000 international conference will be held in the United Kingdom. Officers from my home state of Michigan representing the Oakland County Sheriff's Department, Waterford Township and the City of Dearborn will visit Wales and England in August. The reserve police officers will patrol with both regular and special officers of the South Wales Constabulary, the Metropolitan Police and the City of London. A formal conference will be held on August 31 at New Scotland Yard. I wish to extend to each officer, from both America and the United Kingdom, my sincere appreciation for their efforts in strengthening the bond of friendship and professionalism among reserve police officers. These individuals risk life and limb every day by volunteering their services to the public. Their dedication and hard work in protecting the public are to be enthusiastically saluted.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I stress the importance of retaining Section 907 of the Foreign Assistance Act in the Foreign Operations Bill. For more than 10 years Azerbaijan has cut off the transportation of food, fuel and medicine from the United States and the United Nations to our ally Armenia. Armenia and its neighbor, Nagorno-Karabagh are both landlocked, and these blockades are virtually isolating them from the rest of the world. Section 907 prohibits United States aid to Azerbaijan and constitutes a focused, appropriate message to the government of Azerbaijan that the United States won't support efforts to marginalize, via blockade, entire populations of neighboring states. Section 907 must remain in place until the President of Azerbaijan confirms that country is taking steps to cease blockades and offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. I encourage my colleagues to support Section 907 in the Foreign Operations bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, one of our most revered institutions, the family-owned business, is under assault from the federal estate tax (death tax). According to the Center for the Study of Taxation, 70 percent of family-owned businesses fail to make it to the second generation and 87 percent don't make it to the third. The death tax is one of the major contributors to this disturbing statistic. To pay this unfair tax, which can reach as high as 55 percent of the value of an estate, many family-owned businesses must be liquidated or sold off entirely after the owner dies. For several years, a bipartisan coalition in Congress has worked to provide relief from the death tax. In fact, on June 9, 2000, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 8, The Death Tax Elimination Act. This much-needed bill would strengthen family-owned businesses and encourage savings and investment by repealing the death tax over a ten-year period. Unfortunately, it appears as though business owners will have to continue waiting for significant relief from the death tax, as President Clinton has indicated that he will veto H.R. 8 if it reaches his desk. That being said, there are still many steps that business owners can take to minimize the negative impact of the death tax. Norman Pappas, founder and president of The Enterprise Group, a company located in Southfield, MI, has recent written an important book that I enthusiastically recommend to every business owner who want to ensure that his company remains strong and is kept in the family after he dies. Mr. Pappas' book, ``Passing the Bucks--Protecting Your Wealth from One Generation to the Next,'' reveals the secrets of effective business succession and estate tax planning that can help reduce or even eliminate the risk of losing most of the assets a business owner worked so hard to accumulate. For the last 30 years, The Enterprise Group and other financial and estate planners have helped business owners protect what is rightfully theirs. For example, Mr. Pappas has assisted over 1,500 businessmen and women to traverse the complicated practice of business succession and estate planning as they wrestle with the federal tax burden. Mr. Pappers' expertise experience in solving the complicated financial problems of family-owned businesses is evident throughout ``Passing the Bucks.'' One of the primary lessons we have learned is that we must eliminate the death tax and I am proud that we have done just that in this House. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of Mr. Pappas and his colleagues in the practice of estate planning and to commend his efforts to protect family-owned businesses from the onerous provisions of the death tax.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I pay a much deserved tribute to former Congressman William S. ``Bill'' Broomfield, who ably served the people of the State of Michigan for over forty years. I am introducing legislation to name the post office building at 200 West Second Street in Royal Oak, Michigan, in honor of my friend and predecessor. I am pleased to report to the House that the entire Michigan House delegation has signed on as original cosponsors of the measure. Mr. Speaker, Bill Broomfield is so well respected by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle that both Republicans and Democrats stand together to honor this fine man. Bill Broomfield was born in Royal Oak, Michigan, in 1922 and graduated from then-Michigan State College (now Michigan State University) in East Lansing before serving ably in the Michigan legislature. He was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 1956, the same time as the second Eisenhower Administration and he did not stop serving his constituents until his retirement from this body in 1992, a span of thirty-six years. Bill Broomfield is Royal Oak's favorite son and a true man of the people. He is so endearing and personable that he was known to his constituents simply as ``Bill''. He loves the people he served for and they have love, admiration, and respect for him. During his tenure, Bill Broomfield was the hallmark of bipartisanship and a self-defined ``consensus builder''. He served as a member of the International Relations, later renamed the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he helped craft America's foreign policy during the critical Cold War Era. He served as Ranking Member of this committee from 1975 until his retirement in 1993. He also was the point-person in Congress for many of the initiatives championed by Presidents Reagan and Bush. From Nicaragua to the Persian Gulf to Eastern Europe to North Korea, he led the charge in Congress for the foreign policy that ultimately won the Cold War. For this effort, Michiganders and Americans everywhere owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. The history books may credit Reagan and Bush with bringing down communism, but make no mistake, they should also mention Bill Broomfield in the same breath for his outstanding contribution to the effort that ended communism. Mr. Broomfield was also a careful keeper of Congress' prerogatives in foreign policy. He made sure that the legislative branch of government fulfilled its constitutional duty and that the president consulted with lawmakers. For example, Broomfield ensured that President Bush consulted with Congress when the chief executive ordered a massive troop buildup in Kuwait in 1990 in response to Iraq's aggression. When President Bush did come to Congress, Broomfield supported his efforts. He said, ``We must give the president the power he needs to convince Saddam that he has no other alternative . . .'' Think about all of the changes in America he had the privilege of witnessing first-hand during his thirty-six year tenure. He has seen the rise and fall of Soviet totalitarianism. He has seen man reach the moon and Jim Crow fall. He helped move the U.S. Post-War era economy to the brink of the technological revolution. As we move into the 21st Century, we shouldn't forget the legacy of those who helped us get here and Bill Broomfield was at the forefront of that crusade. Just because he retired from elected office didn't mean that he stopped serving the public. In fact, he started a foundation that supports many causes and charities throughout southeast Michigan, including the Salvation Army and efforts for fighting cancer, Alzheimer's, and spina bifida. From the middle of the Eisenhower era to the beginning of the Clinton administration, Broomfield was a gentleman in every sense of the word, and an example of everything that is good and decent in public service and this institution. Naming the post office in his hometown of Royal Oak is just one way we can pay tribute to this fine man and I urge support for the bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the price of gasoline in my home State of Michigan is currently the highest in the country: still nearly $1.90 for a gallon of regular. Yet if $2.00 a gallon is troubling, just consider the impact of implementing the administration's flawed Kyoto Treaty. Tack on at least another 65 cents a gallon and double, double, the energy costs of powering our homes and our factories. Compound this with the loss of as many as 3.2 million American jobs, and we see what this treaty really entails. The fate of the American economy would be placed in the hands of those nations who do not have to comply with the dictates of the treaty but yet are the biggest offenders. Vice President Gore blatantly disregarded unanimous Senate advice in 1997 and volunteered American taxpayers to the Kyoto Protocol. Three years have now passed and still the advice and the consent of the Senate, as mandated by the Constitution, has not been sought on this misguided treaty. We already pay too much for our energy supplies. We cannot afford to further insult the American worker with this damaged and unratified treaty.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution and to commend the success the Republic of Latvia has achieved since the May 4, 1990 reestablishment of its full sovereignty and independence from the former Soviet Union. Since the declaration of its independence, Latvia has established a democratic government, passed legislation on human and minority rights, ensured the rule of law and sustained the development of its free market economy. Latvia has also consistently pursued a course of integration into the community of free and democratic nations by seeking membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). I support admitting the Baltic states into NATO and I hope my colleagues here in the House will support their entry also in the next round of NATO expansion. Latvia has made great strides over the last ten years and this resolution helps to highlight this success. I thank Representative Shimkus for his efforts to bring House Concurrent Resolution 319 to the floor and the opportunity to congratulate Latvia on the last ten years of progress.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak in support of the rule and of course this bill, H.R. 4811, the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), who I think, because of his leadership and determination in steering this bill through the legislative process, we have something that may draw some disdain from some, but I think it is a wholesome bill. It is a good bill. This rule is obviously one calculated to bring about some debate that, in the end, will bring us a product that I think will be proper. It is never easy for a chairman to do that. I believe that the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), with his fairness and his leadership, and frankly an astonishing amount of patience, which he has done each year during this appropriations process, is something that we should make note of. I also would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, who has provided leadership on many important issues and promoted, I think, her views with a great deal of energy and enthusiasm. Of course, I would be lacking if I did not support and thank the staff for the great work that they have done, all of them. I note Mr. Shank and Mr. Flickner are two that have been extraordinarily helpful, and all of them have been very much involved in this process to bring about a bill that is drafted, I think, for success. Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible bill that effectively allocates the foreign assistance that we have available while providing crucial support for our country's national security. In the region of the former Soviet Union, this bill helps to strengthen our relationship with our friend and ally, Armenia. The U.S. relationship with Armenia is vital to our effort in promoting democratization, economic development, peace and stability in the independent states and particularly the Southern Caucasus. This bill contains much-needed funding for Armenia as well as important language directing the administration without further delay to release the remainder of the $20 million provided in 1998 for the victims of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. I believe we have produced a productive, positive approach that will facilitate peace in the Caucasus by emphasizing confidence-building measures which have been discussed among the parties at NATO and OSCE summits. This bill also contains critical assistance to Lebanon. I successfully sponsored an amendment during full committee consideration with support on both sides to increase aid to Lebanon from $15 million to $18 million. The withdrawal of Israeli forces, armed forces from South Lebanon, creates a great and immediate need for the U.S. and the international community to assist the people of that region. This additional funding will provide an important start by allowing USAID to expand its program in Southern Lebanon. However, I am hopeful that the U.S. will be able to provide a significant aid package to Lebanon in the near future to help rebuild its school, repair and rebuild its infrastructure, and further our goal of establishing a comprehensive lasting peace throughout the region. I look forward to working with the subcommittee on this effort. This bill also provides important protections for our national security. Once again, conditions have been included on aid to North Korea through the Korean Energy Development Organization. Since 1994, when the United States and North Korea established KEDO and the Agreed Framework, the United States has upheld its commitments to North Korea. I might add that North Korea is the biggest recipient of foreign aid from the U.S. in Eastern Asia and Southern Asia. However, hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have died from starvation while Pyongyang continues to divert our aid to their military. North Korea has repeatedly antagonized its neighbors and threatened to launch ballistic missiles capable of hitting America. The conditions of KEDO contained in this bill are necessary to ensure North Korea is living up to its end of the bargain and uphold the national security of the United States. I am also pleased there is language in this bill to prohibit the administration from implementing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change without first sending it to the Senate for advice and consent as required by the U.S. Constitution. Both USAID and the State Department have attempted to pursue programs and activities solely contained in the Kyoto Protocol. I have documented these efforts in subcommittee hearing. I have also discussed this matter on numerous occasions with USAID administrator Brady Anderson. Section 577 of this bill provides an appropriate balance by prohibiting the administration from engaging in activities specifically related to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, such as carbon emissions trading, while at the same time protecting the long-standing programs and activities within USAID which have been previously and specifically authorized by Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to support this rule for what I think is a very responsible bill. The subject of foreign aid often sparks heated debate on this floor, but I hope all Members will unite behind this fair bill and what I believe to be a good rule to maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence across the globe. I ask for Members on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Mrs. Marianne Nestor, Vice-President of Fund Development and Volunteer Services of St. Joseph Mercy-Oakland Hospital. Mrs. Nestor resigned her post on June 30, 2000, after serving her community for over 20 years. It is a rare occurence that any person serves an institution so well for so long. Mrs. Nestor has been an asset to the hospital and community and will be sorely missed. Marianne Nestor's distinguished career with St. Joseph Mercy-Oakland Hospital began in 1978 when she began serving as Vice-Chairwoman Board of Directors. Shortly after, she became Director of Volunteer Services, and later Director of Fund Development. In 1984 she was named the Director of the consolidated Fund Development, Volunteer Services, and Gift Shop department. At this post, Mrs. Nestor served of St. Joseph Mercy-Oakland Hospital for 15 years with the utmost concern for the hospital's patients and guests. In 1998, she became Vice-President of Fund Development and Volunteer Services. As a member of the President's senior management team, she has advised the hospital on overall operation of the hospital. Despite the rigorous time constraints due to her hard work at the hospital, Mrs. Nestor found the time to additionally contribute to the community by volunteering for countless activities. Mrs. Nestor has been a volunteer Board Member, and later, President of the Rotary Club of Pontiac; a founding member of the Mental Illness Research Association; and a board member of the Russ Thomas Scholarship Foundation to name a few. The residents of Oakland County have been fortunate to have Mrs. Nestor serve the community with the diligence and commitment rarely found today. She and her outstanding team of hospital volunteers have made of St. Joseph Mercy-Oakland Hospital one of the finest hospitals for health care in the country. She has been a great friend of mine and I wish her all the best.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to state at the outset that this amendment makes the language for this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 4461, exactly the same, word-for-word, as the language in the energy and water appropriations bill, the same, word-for-word, that will be in the foreign operations bill that will come before this body this week. This language passed by voice vote with no opposition in about 1 minute just a few days ago. I would like to make four quick key points that are actually directed in this amendment. Number one, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Number two, no new authority is granted. Number three, neither the United Nations framework convention on climate control, nor the Kyoto Protocol are self-executing and specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program or initiative. Number four, since the Kyoto Protocol has not ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all Members to support what is a bipartisan supported amendment, and it has been our effort to strengthen through clarification and offer consistently in all of these bills and we think that is the proper approach, it simplifies things, clarifies things and I think strengthens things. Mr. Chairman, in the morning two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. That afternoon an amendment that the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Visclosky offered on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill was exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was accepted in the full House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol offered by me and then Mr. Visclosky and now again by me cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 106- 4461, lest it be subject to a point of order. This amendment shall not go beyond clarification and recognition of the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now--specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this Administration for clarification of the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation. The plea came from the coordinator of all environmental policy for this Administration, George Frampton, in his position as Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000, on behalf of the Administration he stated before the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here [about the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation], my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty created next year.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congress for the focus on the activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized. This amendment shall be read to be a clarification that is fully consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in six current appropriations laws. A few key points must be reviewed: First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding important energy supply and energy conservation program. For example, there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any programs that have been specifically authorized and funded. Second, no new authority is granted. Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or initiative. Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol some time ago but has decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. All indications from this Administration lead to the conclusion that they have no intention of ever submitting the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate. Pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President only has the power to make treaties ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' It is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty in contravention of the Advice of the Senate. The unanimous (95-0) advice of the Senate was given in Senate Resolution 105-98, referred to as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Likewise it is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty with no intention of ever seeking the consent of the Senate. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of the United States. We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to avoid constitutional due process. Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy future. During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American public the real price tag of this policy. A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt. Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate. I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not occur. In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clearn Air Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases.'' In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record: October 5, 1999. Hon. David M. McIntosh, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled `EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act' prepared for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments. First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address global climate change. The House, however, did include provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and global warming, along with provisions implementing the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990). However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all of the provisions included the Public Law. One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions' from `all affected sources subject to title V' of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a `pollutant' for any purpose. Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through (k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and Control,' calls for `non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.' While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a `pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes. Based on my review of this history and my recollection of the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases. I hope that this is responsive. With best wishes, Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record for the Commerce/State/Justice Appropriations bill a letter with legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases.'' October 5, 1999. Hon. David M. McIntosh, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled ``The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act'' prepared for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments. First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address global climate change. The House, however, did include provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and global warming, along with provisions implementing the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990). However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers to the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' the Public Law does not specify that reference as the ``short title'' of all of the provisions included the Public Law. One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, entitled ``Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases contributing to Global Climate Change'' appears in the United States code as a ``note'' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires regulations by the EPA to ``monitor carbon dioxide emissions'' from ``all affected sources subject to title V'' of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a ``pollutant'' for any purpose. Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled ``Clean Air Research,'' was primarily negotiated at the time by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through (k). New subsection (g), entitled ``Pollution Prevention and Control,'' calls for ``non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.'' While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a ``pollutant,'' House and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes. Based on my review of this history and my recollection of the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases. I hope that this is responsive. With best wishes, Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4680, the Medicare Rx 2000 Act, and urge its adoption. We all know that American society is growing older and there is a lot of discussion about the best way to prepare for this reality. Despite the fact that older Americans make up only 13 percent of our population, this age group consumes more than one-third of the prescription medicines in our country. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recently found that, in three years, the average senior will spend $2,075 annually on medication. Compare that to 1970, a year when surveys revealed that people over the age of 65 spent an average of $56 on prescription drugs. That equates to $247 in today's dollars, which is a mere fraction of the cost citizens are currently paying. This is a steep increase by any measure. The bipartisan plan we have before us is eminently fair. It provides reasonable choices for consumers. Every consumer is guaranteed a choice of a least two prescription plans. We should reject the `one size fits some' solution that some Members advocate. I think a recent New York Times (June 18, 2000) subtitle says it all: ``Democrats' Prescription Plan Calls for `One Size Fits All'--G.O.P. Offers Choice''. The American people saw through this scheme in 1994 when they rejected the Clinton health plan and they do not want to see a repeat of this mentality. The bipartisan plan ensures that our nation's neediest seniors receive prescription drug coverage. This vital safety net ensures that no one will be left without coverage. The bipartisan plan fits within the framework of the budget resolution this Congress adopted. I sit on the Budget Committee and we responsibly set aside $40 billion specifically for a prescription drug benefit. In fact, I would remind my colleagues that substitutes offered by the Ranking Democrat on the committee, Mr. Spratt, and the Blue Dog Coalition both offered $40 billion--exactly the same figure we are using today. Some Members advocate busting the budget through a $100 bill scheme. Like every household, we have to live within our means, especially since we are at the dawn of the balanced budget era. With all of the pomp and bluster of the prescription drug issue it is easy to lose sight of the bigger, more important issue: overall Medicare modernization. The bill we have before us is a nice step but we need to do more to address this critical issue. I look forward to the day when we turn our full attention towards saving and strengthening our Medicare system. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan prescription drug plan.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I report to the gentleman that today it was emphasized to me that the Department of Energy is readying a ``Power Scorecard'' that disparages energy produced by nuclear means, coal and natural gas. I ask that as we move forward to and through the conference that the matter be investigated and addressed, if necessary.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Kucinich. It is simply too early to cut funding for the National Ignition Facility. We all realize that there are problems with the project. I am just as concerned as my colleagues here with the troubles that have beset this project. The subcommittee Members and myself are keeping a watchful eye on each and every development at NIF. The Department of Energy has indeed determined that NIF will take longer than projected and cost more than originally expected. But the final cost and schedule are yet to be determined. Those increases must be viewed in light of the fact that the National Ignition Facility is a key component of our stockpile stewardship program. With over 60 times the energy of any laser in existence, NIF will provide us with unprecedented insights into the science of nuclear fusion. The NIF project will provide vital information on our weapons stockpile that would have previously required expensive underground testing. In addition, NIF will offer us some exceptional science related to the underlying physics of nuclear fusion--a source of power that could potentially fuel our future. The Department of Energy is working hard to straighten out the difficulties with the NIF project. It is currently undertaking a thorough evaluation of this project and considering every alternative. It has already been determined that the underlying science associated with NIF is sound. Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding for this program. We need to get all the facts before proceeding-- especially when the issue is the security of our national defenses. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.