Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Fred Korzon, supervisor of Bloomfield Township, Michigan, who resigned his post on December 20, 1999, after serving his community since 1967. Mr. Korzon has been an outstanding municipal leader and is a shining example of all that is right and good in public service. This man of honor and integrity has served on many State, county and local municipal boards and committees including but not limited to: chairperson of Southeast Michigan Council for Governments, Oakland County Parks and Recreation commissioner, and chairperson of Oakland County Association of Supervisors. Fred Korzon's public service actually began on December 10, 1942, when he enlisted in the military. After leaving active duty he served in the U.S. Air Force Reserve until 1950. After leaving the military, he built his own home in Bloomfield Township, MI, and has remained a resident of the community since that time. After graduating from the University of Michigan with a masters degree in history in 1966, Mr. Korzon taught at Pontiac Central High School and Lahser High School in Oakland County. He was first appointed to the Bloomfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals in 1967 and served for 1 year before being appointed to the board of trustees. He was appointed to the full-time treasurer's position in 1969 and ran successfully on the ballot until his appointment as township supervisor in 1982. The residents of Bloomfield Township have been fortunate to have the services of Fred Korzon as our supervisor for 18 years. He has been rock solid for the residents and a faithful servant for our area. He and his outstanding team of public servants have helped make this community one of the finest places to live anywhere in America. He has been a great friend of mine and I wish him all the best.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution and join my colleagues in condemning the assassination of Armenian Prime Minister Sargsian and other officials of the Armenian Government, and I appreciate the opportunity to express my sorrow at the loss of the duly elected leadership of Armenia. On October 27th of this year, Armenian Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian, his ally, Parliamentary Speaker Karen Demirchyan, Deputy Parliamentary Speakers Yuri Bakhshyan and Ruben Miroian, Operative Issues Minister Leonard Petrossian, and other members of the Armenian Government, including a senior economic official, Michael Kutanian, were killed when gunmen burst into the Parliament Chamber in Yerevan, Armenia. The purported leader of the gunmen claimed they were targeting Sargsee-ehn and were launching a coup to quote--unquote ``restore democracy'' and end poverty. Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how assassinating and holding hostage members of a democratically elected government will accomplish that goal. I have met Prime Minister Sarksyan personally and have witnessed first-hand his commitment to a peaceful, economically successful, democratic Armenia. I am shocked and saddened by this terrible act of violence. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Armenia and with the families and friends of those who were killed. This deplorable attack, however, must not deter Armenia and the United States from pursuing our mutual goals of democracy, open markets, and peace in the Southern Caucasus. We cannot allow the very small minority of individuals who oppose the peace process to thwart the valiant efforts made by all parties involved. Significant progress has been made in recent months in Armenia's transition from a socialist republic to a democratic, free-market country. Free and fair local elections were held in Armenia earlier during the week of the attack. In addition, recent meetings between Armenian President Kocharian and Azerbaijan's President Aliyev have produced positive signs in negotiations over the Nagorno-Karabagh peace process. At this difficult time we must remain focused on supporting the people of Armenia and the Armenian government. Now we must reaffirm our commitment to assist Armenia in its continued progress toward a proud, democratic nation.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues of a few reasons that a minimum wage hike is unnecessary. Raising the minimum wage harms the very people that it is supposed to help. U.S. Census figures show that the average income of minimum wage employees increases by 30 percent within 1 year of employment. Why? Because, as these workers spend time in the workplace, they accumulate more skills and increase their own value. Just plain common sense. That is why less than 3 percent of employees above the age of 30 work at the minimum wage. The longer they are in the work force, the more money they make. Madam Speaker, there are better ways to empower the poorest and least skilled in our society. Tax incentives for working Americans and businesses are just one way. Raising the minimum wage is clearly the wrong way. I urge my colleagues to keep these important factors in mind as the House debates a minimum wage hike in the future.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has opened the door to one of massive tax increases on working Americans and raiding Social Security to finance Washington's spending. Revenues are flooding into the Treasury at record levels, but the President says that is not enough. As the percentage of GDP or income or however we want to look at it, taxes are at an all-time high. But the President says they have to be higher. We squandered billions in Russia. We have got hundreds of wasteful or questionable programs, paid billions each year to so-called consultants. And still the President says we need more money because he just cannot find anything in the budget he wants to cut. He would rather raise taxes or dip into the Social Security surplus. Mr. Speaker, the American people want to tell the President no, they do not want the President's higher taxes. This body does not want his higher taxes. Remember the vote, 419-0. They do not want him to take a step backward and raid Social Security. They do not want more spending and bigger Government. It is time to slam a door on the President's plans for more taxes and raiding Social Security.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, last week the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Federal Government, for the first time in nearly 40 years, avoided spending any of the Social Security Trust Fund forward other Government programs. I hear this business about $13 billion from the other side. They know that that was based on an inquiry with false presumptions, none of which ever came about. What I would like to say is, for the first time, the Social Security surplus bottom line is in the black. This in itself is the single-most important budgetary accomplishment that Congress, and I mean all of Congress, has achieved in years. But we should not lose sight how we got here. In 1995, when the Republican Congress took charge, we organized spending priorities. We got a lot of bipartisan support. All of this was done in an effort to protect the American taxpayers' money and strengthen vital programs like Social Security. Yet earlier this year, the President proposed dipping into the surplus by $57 billion. Now he is threatening to veto certain bills because they do not spend enough. That is hardly an effort to protect Social Security. Stop the raid on Social Security.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the time. I just want to respond to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Mollohan. He and I have had a lot of agreements; we have had some disagreements. And I notice that in his comments he made reference to language that appeared in the fiscal year 1999 report. I am here to say that we differ strongly on that; and I think as a Member of this committee, as a senior Member, that I should state that the language, the intent of both the House and the Senate should be referred to. It should be referenced, and it should not just simply be fiscal year 1999, because that language is in the ash can of history, in my judgment. We should look at fiscal year 2000. So my belief is that it is important that I at least get that out as an additional view of this report. It does not say that we are not going to have this debate in the future, but I do believe it is clear that he and I differ. And I think I should get that report, that comment on the record.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to remember the important principle behind the creation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, better known as ERISA. In response to a number of flagrant abuses to benefit plans, it was decided that protecting the interests of employers as well as the beneficiaries was of the utmost importance. Because of this sentiment, ERISA abides by the predominant view that employees should be afforded the opportunity to quality care. These provisions apply to nearly 150 million employees, 80 percent of our Nation's workers, who otherwise may not have obtained the necessary access to the vital coverage that they require. Because plans would be subject to the same benefit laws across the States, costs are kept down because government regulations which traditionally drive costs up are eliminated. Look at the numbers. We have heard them before. Some 44 million Americans do not have health insurance. That means one out of six do not have health coverage. The other proposals that we are considering today, that we have been listening to, would significantly raise premiums, some by over 4 percent. The nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, concludes every percentage point in premiums that are increased translates into 400,000 people losing their coverage. Common sense tells us that what we should be doing is to consider ways to provide coverage for all Americans, not forcing people out of their health coverage. Make no mistake about it, the chief beneficiaries of preempting ERISA would be the trial attorneys. Consumers and employers would be left to pick up the bill for increased and often frivolous litigation. This Congress must ensure the patient's right to care, not the lawyer's right to bill. The alternatives offered today do nothing to help sick people get better. That is what this debate should be about. That is why I support the Boehner substitute, and I believe all Members should.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 2606, the Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Bill for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Agencies. As a member of the subcommittee, I want to again commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for the outstanding work that he has done, hard work. Shepherding an appropriations bill, particularly this bill, to the process is no easy task. Yet, he has done it with diligence and impartiality, and he has done it, frankly, with extraordinary fairness, I think; and I commend him for that. I also, of course, want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member. I am disappointed that she is going to oppose this bill. But I want to thank the staff as well who have contributed so much to bringing this bill to the floor in a shape I think that is satisfactory. From the beginning, we have worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft a foreign operations bill that reflects our Nation's international priorities, and the chairman mentioned those, while adhering to the budget constraints that we face today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight on a provision in the conference report designed to prevent back-door implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Despite what was said during consideration of the rule, in no way does this provision prevent the United States from engaging developing countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change signed by President Bush in 1992 and ratified by the Senate. Specifically, Articles 4, 6, and 17 allow voluntary measures and give developed country parties authority to engage in international education, listen carefully, international education, develop technologies, promote sustainable development, and assist vulnerable developing countries. I point out to my colleagues that not one of these activities arises out of the Kyoto Protocol. The funding prohibition states that no fund shall be used to implement or prepare to implement the Kyoto protocol. Not one of the aforementioned diplomatic activities arising out of the U.N. Framework Convention is prevented by this prohibition. The administration is free to engage developing countries under the U.N. Framework Convention. However, the administration cannot cross the line and engage other nations regarding ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States deems totally unworthy of ratification and implementation. The conference report was crafted, again, in a bipartisan fashion and taking into consideration all of the views, certainly of everybody in this House. And the subcommittee, I think, has worked very well to bring all this together. We need to unite behind this fair bill that will maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence across the globe. I ask for Members certainly on the other side to rethink their thoughts about voting against this bill. We need to support this conference report.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has vetoed the tax relief package passed by Congress. Once again, by vetoeing this legislation, he has denied the average middle-class family relief from the marriage tax penalty. He is robbing millions of workers the opportunity to obtain health-care coverage, who do not have health-care coverage now. He is making it more difficult for parents to save for their children's education. He is making it more difficult for people to pass on the family farm or the family business after a lifetime of toil, sacrifice, and devotion. He is making it more difficult for people to save for their future and provide for their retirement. This tax legislation would have been a step towards more fairness in the Tax Code and it would have reduced the burden on the people who are carrying the load paying the taxes and living the American dream, or trying to live the American dream. Once again, bigger government wins and the taxpayer loses.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the Doolittle bill and am proud to stand here in front of my colleagues in full support of that bill. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for bringing forward this bill, and I thank him for yielding me time. Campaign finance is like so many other issues. There are two basic philosophies. Free speech and free market is one philosophy; increasing the size of the Federal Government with more restrictive regulations is the other philosophy. Mr. Chairman, I stand before our colleagues in favor of free speech. Over time, a big-government approach has choked our campaigns. Regulation without provision for inflation has dwindled the real value of contributions to just 30 percent of what it was when enacted. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, these strangling limits may be what led the Democrats into all of their campaign finance irregularities. Let us pass the Doolittle substitute. Let us free up political speech as America's founders intended, in the tradition of Thomas Payne, the publisher of free political speech in that famous document, Common Sense, that enabled the creation of this great Nation. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Doolittle substitute.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues of the many benefits of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, better known as ERISA. After all, voluntary ERISA-based employer self-insured plans cover nearly 80 percent of the workers in this country. ERISA retains the State's authority over the business of insurance. It also ensures that plans would be subject to the same benefit laws across the States. ERISA provides flexibility by allowing employers and employees to agree to choose a benefit package which best suits their needs. This approach keeps costs down because it allows them to do so without the government regulation that drives the costs up. Make no mistake about it, the chief beneficiaries of preempting ERISA would be the trial lawyers. Consumers and employers will be left to pick up the bill for increased and often frivolous litigation. Mr. Speaker, this Congress must ensure the patient's right to care, not the lawyer's right to bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to engage in a colloquy with the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and also the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). Mr. Chairman, at the full Committee on Appropriations markup, I spoke on the issue of NOx, although I did not offer an amendment on the subject. I addressed what I felt was an apparent inequity created by two separate and conflicting actions that occurred last May. One was EPA issuing a final rule implementing a consent decree under section 126 of the Clean Air Act that is triggered in essence by EPA not approving the NOx SIP Call provisions of 22 States and the District of Columbia by November 30, 1999. The other was by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in issuing an order staying the requirement imposed in EPA's 1998 NOx SIP Call for these jurisdictions to submit the SIP revisions just mentioned for EPA approval. Caught in the middle of these two events are electric utilities and industrial sources who fear that now the trigger will be sprung next November 30, even though the States are no longer required to make those SIP revisions because of the stay, and even though EPA will have nothing before it to approve or disapprove. Prior to this, EPA maintained a close link between the NOx SIP Call and the section 126 rule, as evidenced by the consent decree. My proposal was to apply a parallel stay. It would have simply prevented EPA from implementing the NOx regulations through the back- door until the litigation is complete. I believe such a stay is needed, because even though EPA said only a few months ago that the principles of State discretion embodied in the Clean Air Act require that States first address any interstate ozone transport problems through State implementation plans submitted in response to the NOx SIP Call rule, I understand that EPA is now suggesting it may reverse its interpretation of this act, forcing businesses to comply with EPA's federal emission controls under section 126 without regard to NOx SIP Call rule and State input. This proposed reversal is creating confusion for the businesses and States. Under EPA's proposed new position, businesses could incur substantial costs in meeting the EPA-imposed section 126 emission controls before allowing the States to use their discretion in the SIP process to address air quality problems, less stringent controls or through controls on other facilities altogether. Indeed, the fact that these businesses almost certainly will have sunk significant costs into compliance with the EPA-imposed controls before States are required to submit their emission control plans in response to the NOx SIP Call rule would result in impermissible pressure on their States to forfeit their discretion and instead simply conform their State Implementation Plans or SIPs to EPA section 126 controls. While I think such an amendment is needed, I recognize the concerns of my good friends and agree not to offer it. Nevertheless, I believe that if EPA proceeds on its present course, we will have an untenable situation that EPA could avoid if it has a mind to do so. In summary, the two independent actions in May, EPA's issuance of a final rule implementing the consent decree and number two the court stay of the NOx rule, need to be addressed. Therefore, I ask my distinguished colleagues if they would agree with me that EPA should find a reasonable way to avoid triggering the 126 process while the courts deliberate.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, Republicans in the House of Representatives are keeping their word to the American people. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am very proud of the work that the committee has done and led by the gentleman from Florida who has crafted bills that will keep the agreement and maintain the budget caps that we promised back in 1997. On the other side, the flip side, the President's budget proposal busts the budget spending by some 42 billion over our agreed upon limit. How does he get away with that my colleagues ask? By using gimmicks, by assuming new taxes on the American people knowing full well that the Republican Congress would never agree to those tax hikes. Now we understand that a supplemental spending plan is coming our way from the White House. This emergency spending would add up to 12 billion more. Madam Speaker, this illustrates our point about why we must provide meaningful tax relief to the American people. If we do not give the American people back their money, it is sure to be spent by the big government crowd here in Washington, D.C. That would be a huge disservice to the people who pay our bills, the American taxpayer.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in full support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, who has done, I think, an outstanding job in working with the chairman. I also want to extend a salute to the senior member of the staff, Frank Cushing, and all the staff who have contributed to bringing this bill about. Without their long hours, dedication and hard work, none of this would have been possible. This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. It is not an easy task to bring this wide range of interest together into a single bill. However, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have forged a relationship which I think makes this all possible. H.R. 2684 is a good bill. Is it a perfect bill? No. Is it a fair bill? Absolutely, yes. I would echo the words of my chairman that we are still early in the legislative process for dealing with this legislation. There will be plenty of opportunities for Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the President finally puts his signature on it. I would implore my colleagues not to let perfection be the enemy of good. The FY 2000 VA-HUD bill is a bill produced under very difficult circumstances. Those have been outlined. And it is within the budget caps. It responsibly provides the full $1.7 billion increase, the amount called for in the budget resolution for veterans' medical health care, and fully funds Section 8 housing. It also provides $325 million above, that is above, the President's request for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) should be saluted for crafting this piece of legislation under very difficult circumstances, and I know he has worked in good faith with the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), to forge this bill that the House now has before it. Mr. Chairman, this is a fair bill and there will be time to strengthen it and further it as the process moves along.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, the American people want and deserve fair and responsible tax relief for all taxpaying citizens. This balanced plan sets aside 75 cents of every dollar from the $3.3 trillion surplus to the important task of strengthening Social Security, reforming Medicare and paying down the national debt. Our tax relief proposal also rebuilds our military and pays for other vital programs. Despite the demagoguery, the Republican tax relief bill does not, I repeat, it does not cut existing programs to pay for itself. The fact is that 25 cents of each overpaid surplus tax dollar is returned back to the American people. It is their money, and they very much deserve to be refunded for a part of the surplus over the course of the next 10 years. This is very important, too. I remind my colleagues that none of this tax relief will be realized if first the surplus does not materialize. With taxes at an all time high, with the Government in the black, I urge the administration to embrace this responsible approach and rethink their veto strategy on behalf of the American taxpayers. It is not too late for this administration to do the right thing.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, the doors are not necessarily cracked, but we can talk out in front of those doors, if you will. I do not mean to suggest this language is going down. I am just saying, I would be happy to talk to the gentleman about it.

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

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me assure the gentleman that there is nothing in this wording, which was worked out, by the way, in conference last year with the Senate and the House, with Senator Byrd. This language, by the way, was further, I would say, changed from what we had passed on the House floor last year. So this has the approval and the backing of Senator Byrd and the Senate, and it was passed without any kind of interruption in the conference last year. So the gentleman is suggesting I reopen that. What I would tell the gentleman is that we would continue to say that this language only is intended not to challenge or to stop any kind of research or education, but when we cross the line to advocacy, we have gone too far. When we spend money in the hopes of the developing nations of the world coming on board, we are crossing that line.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I went to both Kyoto and Buenos Aires, and we tried in the hardest way we could to get the developing nations on board in a voluntary fashion. I say again, if we were to expend monies to help the developing nations come into the picture, and I think that may be what they want, we are in violation of the very wording, the very language we have here. We would be in violation, in fact, of the Senate, which voted 95 to zero to say simply, bring the developing nations into the picture, bring them on board. They must be participants. It does not mean we do it for them, they have to be participants. That is what this language simply says, is do not do anything until they become, on their own, participants in this process. Along the way we do not stop any, any voluntary action on the part of anybody. It is taxpayer dollars that we are talking about here.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in strong opposition to the Kucinich amendment. This is clearly an anti-trade, anti-export amendment that would have the effect of encouraging a breakdown in our system of international commerce. The Constitution specifically grants Congress and only Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The authors of the Constitution intended for this section to protect international commerce from the destructive consequences of varying trade legislation across hundreds and hundreds of local and State governments. This amendment goes in the other direction. It would effectively take away the ability to conduct foreign policy away from Congress and away from the President. I would ask everyone in the body, strongly support a no vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich. This is clearly an anti-trade, anti-export amendment that would have the effect of encouraging a breakdown in our system of international commerce. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress, and only Congress, the authority ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' The authors of the Constitution intended for this section to protect international commerce from the destructive consequences of varying trade legislation across hundreds of state and local governments. As a result of this foresight, in cases where there are conflicts between an act of Congress that regulates international commerce and a state or local law, the federal law prevails. In order to maintain our international agreements and expand trade opportunities for American workers and businesses, it is essential to uphold this constitutional authority of the federal government. This amendment, however, proposes to take our country in another direction. This amendment would effectively take the ability to conduct foreign policy away from Congress and the President and place it in the hands of hundreds of state and local governments. Obviously, this would remove the stability of U.S. foreign relations and damage the credibility of the United States in negotiating international treaties. In addition, the stability and predictability of international business relations in the United States would be threatened, angering our allies and forcing them to consider retaliatory actions. Numerous Congresses and presidents have worked extremely hard to establish trade agreements that open markets around the world and keep them open through effective dispute settlement procedures. These procedures have benefited American workers and companies across many sectors and were put in place at U.S. insistence with our sovereignty concerns fully in mind. This amendment would undermine this system and risk breakdowns in international agreements we have made with our allies. One third of this country's economic growth is tied to our dynamic export sector and American companies and workers depend on open markets throughout the world. We have made great progress by encouraging the exchange of American values, goods, and services with our trading partners. Now is not the time to reverse this progress by building protectionist walls around the U.S. I urge my colleagues to support free trade and U.S. engagement throughout the world and oppose this protectionist amendment.