Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, today the House Appropriations Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The amendment that the gentleman from Indiana now offers is exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was accepted this morning in the full House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol offered by me earlier and now by Mr. Visclosky cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Energy and Water Appropriations bill, H.R. 4733, lest it be subject to a point of order. This amendment shall not go beyond 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 in the words of 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 this appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here, 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 gentleman from Indiana for his focus on the activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized. This amendment shall be read to be 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 programs. 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 sometime ago but has decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. 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 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.'' In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized. 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 discussion 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 in 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 Committee, 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.' 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 thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) would pull the rug out from under the Department of Energy's important Nuclear Research Initiative, NERI, as it is called. This chart behind me represents the latest data from the Energy Information Agency. There are 103 operating nuclear power plants in this country. They provide 23 percent of the Nation's electricity, more than ever before in our history. Think about it, almost one quarter comes from nuclear. Nuclear is clean and it is green and it is emissions free. I implore every Member with a nuclear-related university or industry in their district to think about this. Regardless of whether it is a university program or nuclear engineering, a national laboratory or one of those 103 power plants, the NERI program provides vital information to support innovative research in nuclear technology. This program is reinvigorating the Department of Energy's nuclear energy R&D based upon competitive and, more importantly, peer-reviewed projects. Even the President's very own committee of advisors says that PCAST as it is called, recommended in 1997 that further nuclear energy research and development is absolutely necessary to maintain the Nation's energy mix. So it is absolutely amazing to me that someone would want to cut the modest amount of funding for the NERI program and instead send it to fund solar and renewables. Let us take a look at this chart for a little bit. This is 1999. In 1999, 22.78, almost 23 percent, more than it was 10 years ago, more than it was 20 years ago. And guess what? The very things that my colleagues are talking about, such as the renewables, we can hardly find them on here. When my colleagues turn the switch on in their house, where do they think the power comes from? It does not come from solar. It does not come from biomass or wind. In fact, the gentleman over here said 13 percent of it was all wrapped up in renewables. He is counting hydro. Hydro is a part of this. Hydro is clean. But look at this. This is 1999. In 1990, it was the same thing, with nuclear down about 2 percent. In 1980, about the same thing. In the 30 years we have been funding this renewable program, we have seen very little gain. I am not suggesting we drop it. I am suggesting we balance it. Do not take away funding that is needed. There are kids that want to go to school to learn how to keep these things going in the new generation of these nuclear plants that is coming on line. Would my colleagues believe that nuclear plants can operate at a 100 percent capacity. Do they know that wind cannot get above 28? They talk about 100 percent capacity. Look, the wind does not blow all the time. Do not let that word fool us. Solar. The sun does not shine all the time. So they said 100 percent capacity. No such thing, my colleagues. It is way below 28 percent, down around 20 percent. So keep that in mind when we are talking about dropping this program. I admit I, too, like the solar. But let us not kill what works. We have got to prove this thing works. And it does not yet, the way nuclear does--reject the Markey-Foley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment. Students and teachers and universities are the issue here. Students are endangered by Mr. Foley and Mr. Markey. They're threatening the education of real live students. Students, as a part of their education, engage in research. This scientific research enables them to get their degrees. In fact, without this research, these students don't get their degrees. Let's take real, live students and professors in the state of Massachusetts where Mr. Markey lives and the interests of which he supposedly represents. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) happens to be in Massachusetts. In fact it is about one mile from the edge of Mr. Markey's congressional district. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been awarded eleven NERI grants. These grants are awarded on a competitive, peer-reviewed, sound scientific basis by a panel of expert scientists. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, fully 20 students and eight professors thus receive the very funds that Mr. Markey is trying to take away and benefit from the very program that Mr. Markey is destroying. For example, let's take two students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Jini Curran and Martin Busse. These students are studying engineering and they have chosen to study the specific discipline of nuclear engineering. Jini and Martin are doing research under the guidance of a particular Professor Mujid Kazimi. Without the funding that the NERI program provides, Jini and Martin's NERI research will have to be stopped and the future of their education is in doubt. Professor Kazimi's research here will cease. Substantial financial resources that now go to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will be stopped dead by Mr. Markey. MIT's Nuclear Engineering Department will therefore be diminished. When these students Jini and Martin and the other eighteen students at MIT are hurt by Mr. Markey, and when Professor Kazimi and the other seven professors at MIT are hurt by Mr. Markey, and MIT's Nuclear Engineering Department is diminished in this way by Mr. Markey, then indeed the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts themselves are hurt by Mr. Markey. Rest assured that if they are not already aware of the damage Mr. Markey seeks to do here today, I will work to make sure that all of the students and the professors and the universities all across this great nation will be made fully aware of his actions and the effects of his actions. Perhaps some of these twenty student and these eight professors live in Mr. Markey's congressional district. Thus, perhaps they are thus his constituents. For the sake of the Jini and Martin and professor Kazimi and all of the students and professors and universities across the nation, Mr. Markey and this amendment must be stopped. A vote for the amendment advocated by Mr. Markey and Mr. Foley is a vote against education. Vote no on the Foley/Markey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I rise in very, very strong support of this bill. I wish good luck to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has done a great job here. We salute him. If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is still about, we salute him. And the staff has done a remarkable job, as well. The fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill is a balanced piece of legislation balancing the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, along with important portions of the Department of Interior and other agencies. This is a good and fiscally responsible bill, with the non-defense portion of it being some $200 million below last area. The Nation's energy policy is a prime focus of this bill. We have the opportunity here to improve what we can all agree is a lacking and flawed energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration. The bill provides for a variety of important education funding for our universities, as well as research and development at our national labs which are related to the energy supply. This includes nuclear energy research under NERI, under NEPO, and under the NEER programs along with investment in the future energy source called fusion and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research initiative that will bridge the software gap, thereby substantially improving our scientific research capacity. This bill also contains some fantastic work, I believe, on nuclear fuel supply, from the beginning of the fuel cycle involving mining, conversion and enrichment, to the end of the fuel cycle involving Yucca Mountain. A new potential cancer cure is advanced in this bill. One of the most successful on-time, on-budget programs at the Department of Energy is the fusion energy program. Fusion energy is treated fairly. The cleanup, finally, of our World War II legacy, our nuclear waste sites, is another important priority in this bill. It contains some excellent work that will refocus the Department of Energy on its responsibilities with a new priority on accomplishments by 2010. We have all the various interests of the American people at heart when we all have programs we hope will be strongly supported. If we have more money at some future time, I cannot say at that time or at this time that we will, but I am confident we will have an even better bill. I urge support of this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who has been a strong, strong supporter of what I would call common sense.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I object.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, unlike what the gentleman just said, this amendment is not the same as last week. This is totally different. This is a gutting amendment. Last week's amendment had to do with EPA. Now what the attempt on the part of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is is to cut the heart out of the language that is law. This is law that was passed in 1999, and the law of last year. Seven times the President has signed language that is now in effect. What H.R. 4690 is not about, it is not about funding of research and development for clean power with renewable energy, or funding to develop new homes that are more energy-efficient, or trying to reduce methane emissions. In fact, what this amendment does is it trips through the year 2000, through the 1999 year, and brings us really back to a point where we were before we even started this language. Incidentally, I would tell the Members, in 1997 the Senate unanimously, by a vote of 95 to nothing, instructed the Clinton-Gore administration not to sign the Kyoto treaty. They did. The United States Constitution requires the advice of the Senate to all treaties, requires the consent of the Senate to all treaties, and balances the power of government between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This is not the same as the amendment last week. The gentleman from Massachusetts errs when he says it is, because this reaches in and takes away everything that we have done. This is not a modest amendment, it is not minor. It is destructive, and frankly, it slaps the Byrd-Hagel resolution in the face. It bypasses the Constitution, and it is wrong for America, it is wrong for the worker, wrong for the laborer, wrong for industry. Along with a slap against the Constitution and the Byrd-Hagel resolution, I think we have to reject, reject strongly this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be advised the amount of time remaining.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) contends that this is just again a very modest thing, a very moderate move, minor move. It is a gut-wrenching, cut-the-heart of the language that we have worked so hard to put in place. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) says that we are not going to implement the Kyoto Protocol. My colleagues must know that there are 24 instances on this sheet of paper where the State Department is implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, all we are trying to do is say do not break the law. If it is authorized, do it. If it is not authorized, do not. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and I have talked about this. But, frankly, the gentleman has crossed the line in terms of transgression. What he is doing is deceptive, disingenuous and it is wrong. It is wrong for this country. Very honestly, if the gentleman thinks that he can change the language here, he can change it again on the next bill and the next bill, and pretty soon, by water torture, drip by drip, we have a bill, we have statutory language that gets pecked away, destroyed so that the administration, with the gentleman's leadership pushing it, can implement the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, I say again, this is not good for America, it is not good for the laborer, for the farmer, it is not good for industry. And, in fact, as has already been heard, it will jack up the price of a thing called gasoline 65 or 70 cents a gallon if we implement it. I suggest that we stop implementation. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Olver amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the amendment by Mr. Olver regarding the Kyoto Protocol cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Commerce, Justice, State, Appropriations bill, H.R. 4690, lest it be subject to a point of order. The offerer of this amendment admits that it shall not go beyond a 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, I am grateful for the acknowledgement of Administration's plea for clarification. The whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this Administration in the words of the coordiantor 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 this appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here, 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 gentleman for his focus on the activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized. The offerer of this amendment admits that it shall be ready to be 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 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 sometime ago but has decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. 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 requried 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 backdroor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not occur. In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the administration has negotiated some time ago the Kyoto Protocol. They have yet to submit that treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. The Constitution demands the Senate's consent, and they will not get it. This protocol places such severe restrictions on the United States while exempting most countries, including China, Brazil, Mexico, and India, from taking any measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The administration took this course of action despite unanimous support in the U.S. Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations, and on the conditions that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of this country. In closing, let me just say that I support the amendment and look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who has been a strong supporter and leader in this effort to bring about some sanity.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggested that we were concerned about the wording in the previous amendment? Who was concerned? Because we showed no such concern.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me proceed with my comments, because I do want to resolve this in a fashion that is acceptable. My immediate view was, why was the language changed? No one presented that change to me. So let me proceed with my comments. I appreciate the gentleman's explanation of why the change, but it certainly was not one that came from our side. Mr. Chairman, I do want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the others for the 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, in my judgment, unratified, Kyoto Protocol. I am grateful for the acknowledgment of the administration's plea for clarification. The whole Nation I think needs to hear the plea of this administration in the words of the coordinator of all environmental policy for this administration, George Frampton. In his position as acting chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, on March 1 of this year and on behalf of the administration, he stated this before the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee: ``Just to finish our dialogue here, my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language which gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty next year.'' Mr. Chairman, I also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (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 gentleman for his focus on the activities. I think that is important, of this administration, both authorized and unauthorized. As I read this amendment, it appears to be now fully consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in current appropriations laws. First, no agency, including EPA, can proceed with activities that are not authorized or not funded; second, no new authority is granted to EPA; third, since neither the United Nations framework convention on climate change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self- executing, and I repeat that, they are not 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, I have had numerous communications with key agencies about the propriety of some of their activities. In most cases there has been a reasoned response that indicates there is recognition that some activities can cross the line and be implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Apparently, President Clinton agrees with us, since he has been clear in his statements that he has no intention of implementing the Kyoto Protocol before it is ratified by the U.S. Senate. I think we have to assure the American taxpayers that they will not pay the bill for activities that are not legal. In my view, this amendment, after looking at it a second time, the second amendment prepared by the presenter, is consistent with the position that we have been taking since 1998; and we all know the EPA has been challenged by the courts on their abuse of the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Law, and an effort to use internal guidance in contravention of legal requirements. Because of the recent activities of the EPA, I just wanted to take this time to thoroughly and carefully review this bill language and consider the content of report language that will be necessary to explain it. Mr. Chairman, I want to again say to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), I do think you are focusing on the kernel here that we have to focus on; and in that regard, I do want to offer some time to my colleagues to comment as well, and I am sure the gentleman does as well. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 16, 2000. Hon. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations. Dear Mr. Chairman. We write to express our strong support for the inclusion of the Knollenberg provision in the Foreign Operations and Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2001. This same provision has also been adopted in report language contained in the Subcommittee Report drafted by the Commerce, Justice, and State Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. As you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol sometime ago but decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while exempting most countries, including China, India, and Brazil, from taking any measures to reduce carbon emissions. The Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate for the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations to the Protocol and on the condition that it not adversely impact the economy of the United States. We believe that the Knollenberg provision is required to preserve the Congress's authority to ratify treaties prior to their implementation. We are also concerned that actions taken by several Federal agencies, including the State Department and the Agency for International Development, constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. The Knollenberg provision is required to block any further implementation of the proposed treaty by the executive branch until Congress addresses this matter. We wish to be clear that this provision will not in any way inhibit the ability of the Administration to negotiate international treaties or conduct the foreign policy of the United States. Rather, this provision seeks to preserve the proper consultation and review process with regard to international agreements that has been reserved to the Congress by the Constitution of the United States. Thank you for your kind consideration of our request. Sincerely, Benjamin A. Gilman. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is different than the amendment that we had previously. Now, the amendment that was given to me previously provided a little bit different picture than what I think this amendment does. We like the idea that we are now dealing with activities which have been the thing that we have been looking at for a long time. If I am not mistaken, and I would like some clarification from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the language that we were prepared to accept was a slightly different variation from what the gentleman has included here. I will read the language, not that the gentleman needs to know; but this body needs to know exactly what was inserted in your previous language, and it said ``provided further that any limitation imposed under this act on funds made available by this act for the Environmental Protection Agency shall not apply to activities related to the Kyoto Protocol which are otherwise authorized by law.'' I ask the gentleman to help me, if he will, but my understanding is that now the gentleman has changed this to saying in the third line ``shall not apply to activities specified in the previous proviso related to the Kyoto Protocol.'' I ask the gentleman what exactly has the gentleman changed here from the previous wording?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, throughout the VA/HUD appropriations hearings this year, I have had occasion to engage both EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bob Perciasepe in a dialogue about their legal troubles and their faulty standards and their flips and their reversals and their scientific troubles. In light of all that, let me explain a little personal experience we are having with EPA in Michigan. The EPA implemented national restrictive mandates on air using a 1- hour measurement. Then EPA revoked the 1-hour measurement and switched to an 8-hour measurement. Next the courts explained to EPA that their actions were unconstitutional. Then the EPA flipped back again to the first restrictive mandate. As my colleagues can imagine, the States and the regulated community are frustrated and harmed by EPA's failures. Now the EPA is ignoring the most recent air quality data and is instead relying on old, out-of-date designations that were in place at the time the 1-hour measurement was revoked the first time. Now, if my colleagues are lost, so were we and so are we. Now, this bad action by EPA violates the long-standing legal principle of fairness known as ``detrimental reliance.'' We can do a whole lot better than this. For just such examples as these, I support the amendment and congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for their leadership.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding to me on this issue. I want to report to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) that the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has just contacted me to state their claim that any failure to achieve an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the EPA is not for any lack of trying on the part of the NRC. I hope that as we move to and through the conference that we have an opportunity to look into the matter and examine the facts and merits of their claim.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution. The WTO serves as a forum for negotiations to eliminate trade barriers, allowing us to export our goods and services freely around the world. It provides the only multilateral dispute mechanism for international trade, administers rules to discourage discrimination, and ensures greater security on how trade will be conducted. For example, stronger dispute resolution procedures within the WTO prevent nations from keeping U.S. goods and services out of their markets through tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Engaging in global trade helps American workers and consumers and overall economic progress. Since 1994, approximately one fifth of U.S. economic growth has been linked to the dynamic export sector. If we choose instead to build trade barriers and ignore the potential of consumers in other nations, we will only reverse our incredible economic expansion and the subsequent higher standard of living. I have heard many allegations that, as a member of the World Trade Organization, we undermine our ability to determine our own domestic policy and compromise our national security. But when we look closely at the WTO structure and how it operates, we realize this is not true. First, the trade rules by which member nations agree to follow are reached by consensus by all members, allowing the U.S. to vote against any rules it finds unacceptable. Further, neither the WTO nor its dispute panels can compel the U.S. to change its laws or regulations. Under the WTO charter, members can enact trade restrictions for reasons of national security, public health and safety, conservation of natural resources and to ban imports made with forced or prison labor. Isolationist policies will only destroy jobs and stifle innovation, while at the same time discourage environmental responsibility. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution and for engagement with the world trade community.