Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield further, let me respond by saying that this language has been very, very carefully crafted. It is not to say that I would be a cement wall in terms of resisting conversation. I never have been. I have continued to be open, and on three different occasions last year we changed this language. It has been in a state of evolution. I think it is at a point where very honestly, even though we would entertain conversations or suggestions from anybody, it would only be to the extent of not spending dollars for implementation. If we cross that line, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to his credit, and I respect him and thank him for it, shares that whole position. If Members read the amendment that was passed last year on the House floor, it was his amendment. It clarified where we are on this business of implementation. I think it would be worthwhile rereading that. Obviously I would be happy to talk to the gentleman in the future. But I would say, do a re-read of that amendment. It is pretty specific about what we can or cannot do. We are not stopping research, we are not stopping development, we are not stopping voluntary movement. What we are saying, however, is do not spend any taxpayer dollars until the Senate ratifies the treaty. So to that end, I am always willing to talk to anybody about this subject, and I am not stifling debate, but I think for purposes of this bill and at this moment, that I can just say to the gentleman, yes, we will have that conversation in the future. But I think this language should stand, because it is the will of this body. It is a bipartisan will, too. It is both bodies.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong objection to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road many, many times, but I would just like to assert a little bit of the history behind why this language is in the bill. Incidentally, it is in a number of bills, and it was signed into law, I would point out, last year by the President. There is strong bipartisan support in this body and the other body for this language, and all it is designed to do and destined to do is to prevent implementation of the Kyoto treaty before it is ratified by the Senate. As the gentleman well knows, the Senate does have something to say about this. I could say to you that nowhere in our wording does it say that we are stopping voluntarily any efforts that are being made in the direction of improving conditions, as you seek. But the developing nations of this world, as has been determined by that Senate vote of 95 to 0, must be participants. That does not mean that we have to pay with taxpayer dollars for implementation of the treaty until there is ratification. Now, I can say further, education and research is something that is very clear. That can be done. But I think the gentleman errs when he says that this language prevents any kind of voluntary effort. What it is designed to do, and it says very clearly, and I can read it, if you would like, ``none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used to propose, issue rules or regulations or decrees or orders for the purpose of implementation.'' That is the story, plain and simple. I would tell the gentleman that it was not just a bipartisan effort, because if you look at the vote through the various subcommittees, committees, on the floor, et cetera, in the Senate, I think there is overwhelming respect for the idea that we should not bypass the Constitution, we should not implement before we ratify. I would just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), that is what this language is for. If you strike this language, you have opened up enough room for a truck to drive through to actually implement the treaty. That is what we do not want to do. I want to get to a point where we have made this world a cleaner place in terms of the air we breathe I think as much as anybody, but we are not going to do it in a constitutional bypass, and that is, frankly, what you do when you strike this language, you leave it open to that.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as I have done for the last 5 years or so. In light of the heightened tensions in Kashmir, the Burton amendment is the wrong approach at the wrong time. The gentleman from Alabama has mentioned the NGO situation. That is aside from some of the things that I want to say. It is important, obviously, but I want to say this amendment will have the inappropriate and ill-considered effect of ostracizing India at a critical point in the ongoing conflict over Kashmir. Mr. Chairman, instead of risking further tension in the region, the United States should be actively engaged in promoting peace in the subcontinent of Asia. While the eventual resolution of the Kashmir conflict must be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan, the United States has an interest in facilitating meaningful negotiations between the parties. In fact, I believe so strongly in bringing peace to this region, that I have encouraged the administration to appoint a special envoy to serve as an honest broker to the conflict. But in order to help bring a framework for peace, the U.S. must come to the table with clean hands. Supporting the Burton amendment would put the recent progress in relations between India and America at risk. Over the past year, we have seen increased dialogue on nuclear nonproliferation, a better understanding of India's security concerns, and an increase in U.S.-India trade and investment. This improvement in U.S.-India relations should be sustained and strengthened, not put at risk. In order to address concerns we may have about India, it is important to focus on fostering a positive and constructive dialogue. This amendment would do the exact opposite by risking the progress we have made. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote against the Burton amendment and in support of peace in Kashmir and engagement with India.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2606, the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill for foreign operations, export financing, and related agencies. As a member of this subcommittee, I want to commend my good friend from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for all of his hard work. Shepherding this kind of a bill, an appropriations bill at that, through this process is not easy. Yet this man has done it, I think, with diligence and impartiality. That speaks highly of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). I also want to extend congratulatory thanks to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, who, along with the entire subcommittee and the staff, has helped to bring about a bill that has been crafted, I think, to do the best for this country. As members of this subcommittee, we have all worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft this foreign operations bill that reflects our Nation's international priorities while adhering to the budget constraints that we face today. In addition to addressing the need in such areas as child survival and international narcotic control, this bill focuses funding on our most important foreign aid priorities and maintains the integrity of our vital national security needs. This bill again highlights congressional concern over North Korea and the dangerous activities of this rogue nation. Despite the 1994 Agreed Framework and North Korea's commitment to end its nuclear program, Pyongyang remains determined to develop weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems that threaten ourselves and our allies. In fact, even the administration acknowledges that next month North Korea is planning to test a missile capable of reaching U.S. territory. If this test proves successful, it will be the first time in our history that a rogue nation will have the capability to deliver a warhead within U.S. borders. The risk to the United States inherent in this capability is unacceptable, and this bill takes strong action to address it. The 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, I believe, has failed, leaving Americans less secure today than they were 5 years ago. We are now forced to face the dangerous consequences of North Korea's broken commitments. Before another dime of U.S. taxpayer money is spent on this flawed agreement, North Korea must live up to its end of the bargain. The U.S. must send a strong signal by conditioning any aid to North Korea on real and verifiable proof that it has ended its dangerous ballistic missile and nuclear programs. The bill also maintains the U.S. commitment to the Middle East peace process, as has been noted, and our long-standing ally, Israel. It provides resources for the resettlement of former Soviet, East European and other refugees in Israel. This refugee resettlement program provides initial food, clothing, and shelter to Jewish migrants fleeing from areas of distress. I am proud of the role that Congress has taken to provide those in need with the means to begin a new life in Israel. In addition, while U.S. support for peace in the Middle East is reaffirmed, the bill contains a historic effort to eliminate the region's long-standing reliance on U.S. economic aid. I would also like to highlight provisions of this bill that deal with the ongoing conflict in the Caucasus. Unfortunately, many Americans do not know the history of this small, troubled region of the former Soviet Union; but this conflict will continue to have a direct impact on the interest of both its neighboring countries and the United States. I am proud to have worked with the subcommittee to craft a productive, positive approach that will facilitate the peace process in the Caucasus and reinforce the U.S. role as an unbiased mediator in the peace process. Despite the lack of broad recognition, each of us has a vested interest in the outcome of the Caucasus. U.S. interest can best be served through swift and meaningful resolution to the conflicts plaguing this troubled region. And that is precisely the approach that this bill takes. By pursuing meaningful, confidence-building measures between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno Karabagh and also keeping the administration fully engaged in this part of the world, we may finally see this region free of bloodshed and conflict and rich with prosperity and opportunity. The subject of foreign aid often sparks heated debate on this floor. While we all have strong opinions about a number of programs, I would ask my colleagues not to let heated discussions about details keep us from the business at hand. 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 on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Again, I want to thank the chairman, the staff, the ranking member for all of the effort they have made in an extraordinary fashion.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the National Conference of Black Mayors, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors held their annual conventions in Denver and New Orleans, respectively. At these conventions, over 100 mayors from around the country signed a petition calling on EPA to provide utility energy providers with maximum flexibility and lead time necessary to avoid higher energy costs to municipalities and local communities, including industrial and residential consumers. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, EPA finalized a rulemaking last year which forced states, including Michigan, to submit State Implementation Plans (SIP's) that meet mandated reductions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions. One element of the rule would force local utilities to control NOX emissions at unprecedented levels. The reductions are of a magnitude that will require capital intensive technology with likely significant pass-through costs to energy consumers, including citizens, municipalities, and local communities. As rural and urban communities seek investment to spur economic growth, the shadow of higher energy costs could have significant adverse effects on brownfields redevelopment and rural/urban revitalization generally. Further, these higher costs will erode the benefits of lower energy costs realized from deregulation. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the EPA compliance deadlines are so stringent that electric utilities could be forced to shut down generating plants to install the necessary control equipment within a very short time. This could result in temporary disruptions of electricity supply. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Court of Appeals, just this past month, issued a stay of the EPA NOX SIP call pending the agency's appeal of the court's decision to strike down EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). The future of the agency's NOX SIP call is uncertain. Nonetheless, the mayors' petition represents a common-sense plea to EPA that, should the agency move forward, that it do so in a way that allows for compliance in the most cost-effective manner possible. I insert the petition in its entirety, along with the names and cities of supporting mayors to be inserted in the Record. Petition--EPA Ozone Transport NOX SIP Call As part of its Ozone Transport initiative, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rulemaking forcing States to submit Implementation Plans (SIPs) to meet mandated reductions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions in the Agency's effort to control inter-state ozone transport impacts. The rule focuses on 22 mid-eastern States, with the likelihood that EPA will expand the application of the rule to several additional States. Several States have joined in litigation challenging the EPA rule on grounds that it is contrary to congressional intent, an abuse of Agency discretion and disregards traditional Federal/State relationships. EPA has even taken the unprecedented step of threatening to impose its own Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in the absence of acceptable State action. Several additional States are considering whether to file an amicus brief in support of the Complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals recently stayed EPA's NOX SIP Call pending appeal of the Court's decision setting aside EPA's new Ozone and Particulate Matter standard. One element of the rule would force local utilities to control NOX emissions at levels unprecedented to date. The reductions are of a magnitude that will require capital intensive technology with likely significant pass- through costs to energy consumers. The unavoidable consequence will be higher energy costs to municipalities and local communities, including industrial and residential consumers alike. As rural and urban communities seek investment to spur economic growth, the shadow of higher energy costs could have significant adverse effects on Brownfields redevelopment and rural/urban revitalization generally. The EPA compliance deadlines are so stringent that electric utilities could be forced to shut down generating plants to install the necessary control equipment within a very short time. This could result in a temporary disruption of electricity supply. Significant NOX emissions reductions will continue to be realized under existing mobile and stationary control programs as the Clean Air Act continues to be implemented thus minimizing the need, if any, for such potentially disruptive requirements as called for in the EPA NOX rule. This is especially true for local areas in the mid-east that are dealing effectively with ozone compliance challenges. Any new control programs, before being implemented, must be weighed against the potential adverse implications for local rural and urban communities. Accordingly, by our signatures below, we collectively call on EPA to reconsider the NOX rule in light of these concerns. In light of the Court's stay of the NOX SIP Call, at a minimum, we urge EPA to provide maximum flexibility to and address lead-time needs of utility energy providers so as to minimize potential adverse economic consequences to local rural and urban communities. Further, we call on EPA to restore balance and cooperation between states and EPA so that States can comply with the rule while protecting their rights to determine the best methods of doing so. Finally, we direct that copies of this Petition be provided to the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Governors and other local officials as are appropriate. state, city, and mayor Alabama Moses--Walter S. Hill Arkansas North Little Rock--Patrick H. Hayes Marianna--Robert Taylor Sunset--James Wilburn California Alameda--Ralph J. Appezzato Fairfield--George Pettygrove Fresno--Jim Patterson Inglewood--Rosevelt F. Dorn Modesto--Richard A. Lang Turlock--Dr. Curt Andre Westminster--Frank G. Fry Florida Eatonville--Anthony Grant Gretna--Anthony Baker North Lauderdale--Jack Brady South Bay--Clarence Anthony Tamarac--Joe Schrieber Titusville--Larry D. Bartley Georgia Augusta--Bob Young Dawson--Robert Albritten East Point--Patsy Jo Hilliard Savannah--Floyd Adams, Jr. Stone Mountian--Chuck Burris Guam Santa Nita--Joe C. Wesky Yigo--Robert S. Lizama Illinois Brooklyn--Ruby Cook Carol Stream--Ross Ferraro Centreville--Riley L. Owens III DeKalb--Bessie Chronopoulos East St. Louis--Gordon Bush Evanston--Lorraine H. Morton Glendale Heights--J. Ben Fajardo Lincolnwood--Madeleine Grant Robbins--Irene H. Brodie Rockford--Charles E. Box Sun River Terrace--Casey Wade, Jr. Indiana Carmel--Jim Brainard Fort Wayne--Paul Helmke Louisiana Boyce--Julius Patrick, Jr. Chataignier--Herman Malveaux Cullen--Bobby R. Washington Jeanerette--James Alexander, Sr. Napoleonville--Darrell Jupiter, Sr. New Orleans--Marc Morial St. Gabriel--George L. Grace White Castle--Maurice Brown Maine Lewiston--Kaileigh A. Tara Maryland Seat Pleasant--Eugene F. Kennedy Massachusetts Leominster--Dean J. Mazzarella Taunton--Robert G. Nunes Michigan Detroit--Dennis Archer Garden City--James L. Barker Inkster--Edward Bevins Muskegon Heights--Robert Warren Taylor--Gregory E. Pitoniak Minnesota Rochester--Charles J. Canfield Saint Paul--Nori Coleman Mississippi Fayette--Roger W. King Glendora--Johnny Thomas Laurel--Susan Boone Vincent Marks--Dwight F. Barfield Pace--Robert Le Flore Shelby--Erick Holmes Tutwiler--Robert Grayson Winstonville--Milton Tutwiler Missouri Kinlock--Bernard L. Turner, Sr. Nebraska Omaha--Hal Daub New Jersey Chesilhurst--Arland Poindexter Hope--Timothy C. McDonough Newark--Sharpe James Orange--Muis Herchet New York Hempstead--James A. Garner Rochester--William A. Johnson, Jr. White Plains--Joseph Delfino North Carolina Charlotte--Pat McCrory Durham--Nicholas J. Tennyson Greenevers--Alfred Dixon North Dakota Fargo--Bruce W. Furness Ohio Columbus--Greg Lashutka Lyndhurst--Leonard M. Creary Middleburg Heights--Gary W. Starr Oklahoma Muskogee--Jim Bushnell Oklahoma City--Kirk D. Humphrey Tatums--Cecil Jones Oregon Tualatin--Lou Ogden Rhode Island Providence--V. A. Cianci, Jr. South Carolina Andrews--Lovith Anderson, Sr. Greenwood--Floyd Nicholson Tennessee Germantown--Sharon Goldsworthy Knoxville--Victor Ashe Texas Ames--John White Arlington--Alzie Odom Beaumont--David Moore Bedford--Richard D. Hurt Euless--Mary Lib Salem Hurst--Bill Souder Hutchens--Mary Washington Kendleton--Carolyn Jones Kyle--James Adkins North Richland Hills--Charles Scoma Port Arthur--Oscar G. Ortiz Waxahachee--James Beatty Virginia Portsmouth--Dr. James W. Holley III

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I appreciate obviously all the work he has done on this bill, his staff included, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his work in bringing about a great bipartisan proposal. I would like to thank the committee as well for addressing my concerns on back-door implementation of the Kyoto Treaty. This bill includes my language to prohibit the DOE, the Department of Energy, from issuing rules or regulations to implement this fatally flawed agreement until it is ratified by the Senate. The Kyoto Treaty is unfair. The United States Senate has unanimously voted that it will not consent to a treaty that is so unfair. Given the stakes involved, Congress must be vigilant in ensuring that this agreement is not rammed through the back door. Make no mistake about it. As the offerer of the amendment, I intend that no taxpayer dollars be spent to do any work whatsoever on carbon emissions trading, be it under the rubric of educational materials, or a seminar or otherwise. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that that bill provides much needed funding for nuclear R&D. Nuclear energy, which represents 20 percent of the Nation's energy supply, provides a viable, cost-efficient and clean alternative to fossil fuels. However, for nuclear energy to become a more prominent energy source for the American people in the 21st century, the Federal Government must dedicate more money to nuclear R&D. This bill provides 20 million for the NERI program, 12 million for the university support programs, and a first-time appropriation of 5 million for the NEPO program. This modest investment of taxpayer dollars will facilitate the development of technology that will make nuclear energy safer and more efficient. It also ensures that the United States will continue to produce the best nuclear scientists in the world, and it provides the resources to improve the efficiency, the safety and reliability of our existing nuclear power plants. Mr. Chairman, I believe these programs provide enormous benefits to the American people, and I would like to see their funding increased even further. I understand however the realities of this at this time are not possible. Once again, I do want to sincerely thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). I want to recognize the staff again because they did a super job, a tremendous job, in bringing this bill to closure. So with that I urge a yea vote on this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of extending normal trade relations to China. Trade between the United States and China is a net plus for the American people. It supports hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs. It creates competition in the economy. It results in the American people receiving better goods and services at more affordable prices. During today's debate, and I have heard much of it already, there has been a lot of talk about the trade deficit, about nuclear espionage and human rights. These are all very important issues. They deserve our immediate attention. However, disrupting our economic relationship with China will not do anything to solve these problems. It will only add more tensions to an already tense relationship with the Chinese and create bigger problems in the long run. Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my colleagues to protect the economic interests of the United States by supporting normal trade relations with China. Vote no on House Joint Resolution 57, and yes for better paying jobs and greater economic opportunities for the American people.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Adam Jones on the completion of his service as a Republican page in the House of Representatives. During his tenure in the nation's capital, Adam proved himself to be a reliable and tireless worker. His work ethic and attention to detail helped ensure that the trains ran on time in the House of Representatives, and he will surely be missed by the individuals he worked closely with over the last year. Adam is an outstanding young man and an excellent student. He has compiled a grade point average of 3.79 at Northville High School, where he has assumed numerous leadership positions. In addition, Adam has volunteered his time to work on several political campaigns in Oakland and Wayne Counties and has been active in his church. I am honored that I had the opportunity to nominate Adam for the Republican page program. He capitalized on this wonderful opportunity to work and learn in our nation's capital and enhanced his understanding of politics and the legislative process. I have the utmost confidence that Adam will continue to achieve success in the endeavors he pursues, and I wish him the very best during his senior year at Northville High.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the death tax deserves to die. This unfair tax discourages savings and investment, destroys family-owned businesses and has a chilling effect on capital formation and job creation. Even more disturbing is the fact that the death tax is imposed on income that has already been taxed once and maybe twice. While every American has a duty to pay their taxes, it is simply wrong for the Federal Government to tax the same money again and again. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is committed to eliminating the death tax. Over the next decade, our tack relief plan would reduce the death tax until it is entirely phased out. I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the average American, small business owners, family farmers, and other over-taxed Americans by supporting this common sense tax cut.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilman-Markey amendment. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their inspiration and leadership on this very important issue. North Korea presents numerous risks to our national security and to the stability of East Asia. The dangerous regime in Pyongyang contributes to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology, engages in drug trafficking, and sponsors terrorist activities throughout the international community. Given this rogue nation's hostility to American values over the last 50 years, I believe that it would be irresponsible for the Clinton administration to hand over $5 billion worth of nuclear reactors to North Korea until it honors its commitments under the 1994 agreed framework. This agreement calls for the North Koreans to freeze their nuclear weapons program and to come into full compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Compliance must be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, but to date, to date, North Korea has denied the IAEA the access it needs to make this assessment. Madam Chairman, before the United States provides sensitive nuclear technology to the North Koreans, we must ensure that Pyongyang is holding up its end of the bargain. To do anything less would undermine the credibility of the agreed framework and endanger our national security and that of our allies in Asia. I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman-Markey amendment. This common sense proposal prohibits key components of the two nuclear reactors in question from being transferred to the North Koreans until the following two things happen: number one, the President certifies to Congress that North Korea has fully satisfied the IAEA that it is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and, number two, Congress passes a resolution that it agrees with the President's certification. Madam Chairman, when it comes to North Korea, we should verify before we trust. Instead of providing another carrot to this rogue nation, the United States must insist that the requirements of the Agreed Framework are met. I urge the strongest support for the Gilman-Markey amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with him in that regard.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I direct the attention of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) to the energy conservation budget in the Department of Energy. Energy conservation promotes reductions in energy use, reductions in waste of raw materials, and reductions of effluent discharge. It thus promotes cleaner water, cleaner air and cleaner soil. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy has admirably focused on energy-intensive and waste-intensive processes. The U.S. Department of Energy has identified steel forging processes as an area that is ripe for improvement in energy conservation. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense has identified forging as a significant industry in the Department of Defense national security assessment. The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences' Precision Forging Consortium, better known as NCMS, has outlined Phase II of a specific, comprehensive, collaborative R&D project to establish new U.S. domestic precision forging capabilities. For a modest investment of $1.2 million this year, with well over 50 percent of the cost being borne by private partners, this second phase will complete the successful Phase I exploratory project. Phase II of this project will achieve very real and substantial returns in 18 months, and they are, namely, a tenfold improvement in tool-life; decreased die system cost; reductions in raw material consumption; reductions in effluent discharge; less scrap; reduced secondary machining requirements and billet design; lower forging temperatures; an overall 20 percent reduction in input energy. And importantly I wanted to note, too, Mr. Chairman, that this project has the support of the administration's Department of Energy Office of Industrial Technologies. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the gentleman from Ohio how I appreciate his kindness and courtesy in allowing me this time for the colloquy. I would urge obviously his consideration and support for this project in conference.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, according to the numbers as we just heard that were released this week, the OMB has decided that there is going to be a surplus of some $1 trillion over the next 15 years. This is good news, and it provides Congress with an historic opportunity to improve the standard of living of our Nation by giving tax relief. The President said in a Rose Garden ceremony Monday: Our new budget framework will use part of the surplus to provide substantial tax relief. The average American has to work 129 days or to May 11 before they get through paying their taxes. Last year, tax revenues grew by 9 percent. That is twice, twice as fast as the economy grew. Now there are several tax cut plans that we could talk about, but the one that I would favor is one I introduced in this House, is to cut taxes across the board. It is the fairest and the simplest way. It stops the proposal, it stops the practice, rather, of picking winners and losers among overtaxed Americans and allows everybody who pays Federal income taxes to keep more of their hard-earned money. Mr. Speaker, with the economy growing and the Federal Government running a giant surplus, there will never be a better time than now to cut taxes.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, time and time again my liberal friends march down to the well of the House to rail against tax cuts for the rich. Ironically, their misleading rhetoric never includes a definition of what constitutes being rich. This is because many of the people they are talking about would be shocked to learn that big-spending politicians consider them rich. Take, for example, a young married couple earning $72,000 a year. This couple falls into the top 10 percent of taxpaying households and would surely be branded as greedy and undeserving of any tax relief by the rhetorical rants coming from the left side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, this is demagoguery, it is disingenuous, and it is not true. I would hope it would come to an end. I implore my Democratic colleagues to stop their misleading tactics and join the Republican Party's majority effort to provide an across-the-board tax cut to every American who pays Federal income taxes.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the constitutional amendment to protect the American flag. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for bringing this forward. His leadership is important in this because of his background. But I also want to relate to the American people how I feel that they feel about why Congress should be called upon to enact a flag protection amendment. They have done this ever since 1989 when the Supreme Court did the decision-making as to burning or desecrating the flag. The storm of protest coming from the American people since that time, I think, has been consistent. While public opinion on most issues tends to be volatile, every reliable survey, every single one that they have conducted on this issue over the last 10 years indicates, shows clearly, that 75 percent or better of the American people believe it should be illegal to burn, trample or destroy Old Glory. They tell me it is illegal to burn trash, but we can burn the flag. It is illegal to destroy Federal property, even a mailbox. But it is okay to destroy the flag. This indicates that while Americans hold their first amendment rights dear to their hearts, they also understand that our flag should be honored and protected against senseless acts of vandalism. People can still express their views without resorting to vandalism. Madam Speaker, the American flag is not just a piece of cloth. It is a symbol that reflects the values, the struggles and the storied history of our great country. I urge my colleagues, those that oppose this amendment, to rethink exactly what the flag means to the American people, those who protest what has taken place, what took place in 1989. I would urge everyone to defend the principles that it embodies by voting for this very important amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment expressing a sense of Congress on this very most important topic. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for her leadership on this issue, because she has pushed, I think, something that needs to be touched; and she has hit it very, very well. I appreciate her leadership in many ways, but particularly here. Mr. Chairman, while we must take a long, hard look at all aspects of our juvenile justice system, can there be any doubt, any doubt at all, that the entertainment industry is contributing to the culture of violence that manifested itself in Colorado; in Georgia; in Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Paducah, Kentucky? These senseless acts of schoolhouse violence committed by children against children have rightfully captured the Nation's attention, and it is time for Congress to move forward with comprehensive legislation that addresses the growing epidemic of violent juvenile crime. Part of this response must include a strong statement against often senseless and graphic violence being peddled by the so-called entertainment industry. They do bear responsibility for what comes out. The point has been made, but it bears repeating. By the age of 18, the average child in the United States will have witnessed 200,000 acts of violence and some 16,000 plus murders through our popular culture. Mr. Chairman, to call this entertainment stretches the definition of the English language. What it really is is mindless brutality, having the effect of coarsening our culture, with the devastating impact on impressionable young people. The effect of this media is a slow and steady erosion of our fundamental values of decency, honor and respect. As the elected representatives of this great country, those of us fortunate enough to have the privilege of speaking for our constituents have a duty, I think, and an obligation, to use the bully pulpit that this House affords to say to the entertainment industry ``Stop, think, change.'' The Emerson amendment calls upon those responsible for our popular culture to acknowledge the enormous influence they have over America's children, to exercise some responsibility and just a little bit of decency when making and marketing their product. We have a duty to enforce and defend the first amendment. Likewise, the entertainment industry has a duty to use judgment, decency and restraint when it comes to our children. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to report this very common-sense amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, not counting the social security, the Congressional Budget Office projects $824 billion in budget surpluses over the next 10 years. Again, that is not counting the temporary surplus in the social security trust fund. What does the Democratic leadership intend to do with these surpluses? Well, the President stated last January that he does not trust Americans to ``spend it right.'' Yes, that is an exact quote. Earlier this month we had the House Minority Leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), state for the record twice that he would consider raising taxes to pay for an expansion in Federal programs. Members heard that right, raise taxes, not cut them. Now we have the minority leader in the other body, Mr. Daschle, who is on record with this exchange on CNN's Evans and Novak. Asked his opinion about raising taxes, Mr. Daschle said, ``It's an option. Of course, it's on the table. . . .'' Think about that. At least the Democratic leadership is consistent. They all want higher taxes.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the EPA is the gang that cannot shoot straight. This Agency's mishandling of the so-called environmental justice issue has undermined the efforts to revitalize the economies of our inner cities and hurt the very people it intended to help. Last year, I included language in the budget that forced the EPA to go back to the drawing board to formulate a more workable policy that addresses the concerns expressed by State and local officials and business leaders from across this country. Mr. Speaker, the EPA has still not come forward with its new proposal. This, I believe, is inexcusable, and it is time for this arrogant, heavy-handed Agency to get its act together. Further delays and additional foot-dragging will only hinder the efforts to redevelop brownfields and create good-paying jobs in minority communities. Mr. Speaker, it is time the EPA finally gets its act together and comes to a final resolution on this issue.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea has failed on several counts. In exchange for making North Korea the largest recipient of U.S. assistance in East Asia, Pyongyang promised to terminate its nuclear weapons program and any efforts to develop or deploy long-range ballistic missiles. While there are several indications that the North Koreans have not kept their end of the bargain, last summer's launch of a three-stage ballistic missile over Japan is the most egregious example of this rogue nation's disregard for their commitments. With Pyongyang calling for further concessions from the U.S., I believe it is important for Congress to make it clear to the administration that we will not provide additional money or ease economic sanctions unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the North Koreans are living up to the requirements of the 1994 Agreed Framework. To do anything less would be a severe abdication of our responsibility to defend the national security of the United States.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has created a national security emergency by spreading our troops all over the world while neglecting the defense budget. From 1960 until 1991, American troops were deployed 10 times. Since the Cold War, our fighting forces have been called into action an astonishing 26 times. Strangely enough, this increased activity has occurred during a period in which our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, the defense bill the House will consider later this week addresses the problems of troop readiness and troop morale by providing the resources to ensure that American troops are the best trained and best equipped in the world. This important bill also provides funding to facilitate the deployment of a national missile defense system that will protect the American people from a ballistic missile attack launched by a rogue nation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation replenishes our military, strengthens our national security, and enhances our ability to carry out foreign policy objectives. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, with Federal taxes at an all-time high, Congress has, I think, a moral obligation to provide some relief to the American people. While there are several tax cut proposals that are being debated in the House, I believe one deserves immediate attention. That issue is the marriage penalty. Under current law, 21 million couples, 21 million couples are required to pay an additional $1,400 a year in taxes simply because they are married. This ridiculous policy is undermining the institution of marriage, and making it harder for working families to get ahead. I have introduced legislation that addresses this problem by increasing the standard deduction provided to married couples so that it equals twice the amount of the deduction provided to single taxpayers. It should make sense. This commonsense proposal would provide some relief from the marriage penalty, inject some fairness into the Tax Code, and strengthen working families. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Small Business Week. I rise in recognition of the important role that small businesses play in our Nation. Small businesses are vital to our economy and our communities. Just listen to some of these facts. They account for 99.7 percent of the employers in our Nation; they employ 53 percent of the private work force and are responsible for 50 percent of the private gross domestic product in America. Despite these enormous contributions, small businesses have to struggle under the weight of excessive taxation and unnecessary regulation handed down by the Federal Government. Clearly, I believe the time has come for Congress and the President to provide some relief to small business owners by cutting taxes and reining in overzealous regulators. Mr. Speaker, I stand to work with both sides, all my colleagues, to promote an agenda that strengthens small business and creates new economic opportunities for the American people.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, it is time to repeal the death tax. Under the guise of making the rich pay their fair share, this unfair tax is leading to the demise of small, family-owned businesses and the elimination of good paying jobs. According to the Center for the Study of Taxation, 70 percent of family businesses do not survive through the second generation and 87 percent cannot survive through the third. This is because family members often must downsize, must liquidate, and sometimes sell the business outright to pay the death taxes, which can reach as high as 57 percent of the estate in question. It also must be pointed out that the death tax represents double and sometimes triple taxation. While every American has a duty to pay taxes, it is simply wrong for the Federal Government to tax the same money time and time again. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill to eliminate the Federal estate tax. This bill will restore fairness to our Tax Code, protect family- owned businesses, and encourage saving and investment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, this year Federal taxes will consume almost 22 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, which means the Federal tax burden is at an all-time high. With the economy strong and the Federal Government running a surplus, there is no excuse for taxing the American people at a higher rate than was needed to win World War II. On the opening day of the 106th Congress, I introduced a bill to cut taxes across the board by 10 percent. The plan is the fairest and the simplest way to cut taxes because it benefits everybody who pays Federal income taxes. An across-the-board tax cut would save the average American family some $1,000 a year, money they can use for anything, for a down payment on a home, or to put aside for retirement. Either way, I know it would be better spent and better used by the family who earned it than by the Washington bureaucrat who yearns for it. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense plan and increase the take-home pay of all Americans.