Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I am delighted to be here this evening to take part in this tribute to Harris Fawell, who I serve with on the committee. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) just mentioned, we have commonality on the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, a subcommittee that I enjoy very, very much and, in particular, I think I enjoy it because of Harris Fawell. Harris is someone that I am going to miss very much, his presence in this body and on that committee, and, frankly, in the cloakroom or wherever I might have caught him. Because along with his ability and capacity to deal with subjects that are beyond the realm of most of us, I say that honestly, he had a sense of humor that went well beyond that and made him into, I think, a genuine friend of this entire body and someone that we all looked up to. I marveled at the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) about the Pork Busters. I recall when I first came to Congress that was one of the events I guess I looked forward to because, again, it was Congressman Harris Fawell that led the way. And, incidentally, even though he was against pork of all kinds, sometimes there were those who suggested that corporate welfare was something that he should be aware of. And Harris, in defense of honest cases where corporate welfare was not corporate welfare just because somebody said it was, he stood up, defended the right of some of these programs to stay in existence because they were meaningful and they did not fall into the trap of corporate welfare. As my colleagues have already heard, Harris Fawell is the only Member, I think of either the House or the Senate, who truly understands ERISA. Some would wonder why anybody would tackle that subject, but Harris Fawell did, and he does understand it and it shows in his work. His leadership on this issue will be sorely missed in this body. When I think of Harris Fawell, I think of three words: I think of thoughtfulness, of thoroughness and being considerate. And he is that way with committee members, he is that way with the public, and he is that way with everyone. He has never been shy about tackling big issues while showing, as I said, an interest in everything from ERISA, to Salting, and the National Labor Relations Act. And I have to confess I do not know why anybody would be interested in the National Labor Relations Act the way Harris was, but he dug into it and literally assessed it, analyzed it, and scrubbed it with his own opinion. Harris Fawell is cordial to work with. He has been willing to listen, and he has conducted himself in a very friendly manner throughout all of his dealings with Members of Congress and with this body. Perhaps most importantly he has demonstrated a deep knowledge of the issues that have been before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. It has been, for me, a true pleasure to serve under his leadership. And his presence, as I have said, will be sorely missed in this body. I wish Harris Fawell all the best in the future, and his family the best. I presume that we have alluded to Ruth at some point along the way, because he has a very lovely wife, and she, in her own right, is a remarkable person. So to them and their family, whom I have had a chance to meet just last week, I wish them the very, very best in the future. I suspect part of their future will be along Lake Michigan shore, my home State. You have chosen a lovely spot to at least spend part of your time. So to you, Harris Fawell, and your family, all the best.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the VA-HUD conference report. I extend congratulations to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes). Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the VA-HUD Conference Report. I want to commend Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes for their leadership on this bill. This is a good bill that contains many important provisions, one of which I would like to highlight this morning. During the VA-HUD Conference last Thursday, I worked with my colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, on a provision to protect workers, manufacturers, farmers, and every citizen in this country from the devastating impact of mandated greenhouse gas reductions required under the Kyoto Protocol. The product of this carefully crafted agreement will prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing the Kyoto treaty through ``back door'' regulatory actions. Specifically, the Conference Report language reads as follows: ``none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation'' of the Kyoto treaty until it has been ratified by the Senate. The Kyoto Protocol is a bad deal for the American people. It would exempt the developing world from having to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, placing the entire burden on the United States and other industrial nations. This exemption creates an enormous loophole for nations like China, India, Mexico, and Brazil which are estimated to be the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the next century. This gross inequity will have a chilling effect on the U.S. economy. Those who can least afford it would be hardest hit by increases in the cost of electricity, gasoline, food, and other goods. Mr. Speaker, the language included in this Conference Report is critical to stop the implementation of a fatally flawed treaty. I urge every member of the House of Representatives to support the VA-HUD Conference Report and this vital funding limitation.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and first I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Joe McDade) for his outstanding leadership, work, and cooperation. All of that is commendable, but we are very, very sorry to see him go. Believe me, we have appreciated having the gentleman's leadership here. I also want to thank the subcommittee staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, who have been working on a number of important provisions that are in this bill. I just want to focus on a couple of areas where we have made, I think, great progress this year to clean up the former defense nuclear facilities. Specifically, in addition to the $4.2 billion we provided for defense environmental management, we provided over $1 billion for defense facilities closure projects, which provides funding for sites which have established a credible goal of completing cleanup by the end of fiscal year 2006. The major environmental management sites, both Rocky Flats in Colorado and Fernald, Ohio, should be closed within the criteria of this program. It was just 2 years ago that DOE estimated that the total cost of the remaining clean-up of the environmental management sites at between, get this, between $189 and $265 billion over a 75-year period, almost as large in dollar amount as the S&L bailout. That plan to us was unacceptable. Certainly, given the long-term funding outlook of all of the discretionary programs we had currently, entitlements and interest on the national debt constitutes, as I think everyone knows, about two-thirds of the budget, and in 10 to 12 years they are projected to consume 100 percent of the Federal revenues. An accelerated clean-up schedule like the defense facilities closure projects will enable us to close some of the sites and free up funds to bring about closure to the entire environmental management program. I also look forward to working with the new Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, and want to express the importance of closing out the remaining environmental management sites to him. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, let us examine for a moment the Republican charge that Democrats had 40 years to do something about Social Security, but did not set aside one dime in all of that time. Well, the charge is quite true, the proof being, of course, that if they had, where is the money that they put aside? As everyone who knows how Social Security works would attest, there is no real Social Security Trust Fund. And funds that come in for Social Security are paid out as soon as they come in for the reasons that the previous speaker mentioned. Is there a Democrat that can deny that? Is there a Democrat that can deny that the Democrats controlled this body for 40 years? How truly ironic that the very same Democrats that are attacking Republicans for setting aside over $1 trillion for Social Security put aside exactly zero when they were in the majority. This I think is an excellent example of the other side's disregard for the truth and the accuracy. Do not seniors deserve better?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the Archer underlying bill and oppose the substitute.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, with the federal government projected to run a budget surplus that exceeds $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, Congress has an historic opportunity to save Social Security and provide some much-needed tax relief. I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Archer's 90-10 proposal. Yesterday, we passed the Save Social Security Act which sets aside 90 percent of the budget surplus to save Social Security. Today, we will return the additional 10% to hardworking taxpayers. We can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. With the average family still paying more in taxes than it spends on housing, food, and clothing combined, we have an obligation to cut taxes for working American families. The centerpiece of Chairman Archer's tax cut mirrors a provision I introduced last year that would increase the standard deduction for married couples so that it equals twice the amount of the standard deduction provided to single taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, the federal government should honor the institution of marriage, not penalize it by imposing higher taxes on married couples. This is a major step forward in the effort to eliminate the marriage penalty from the tax code. Chairman Archer's bill also includes tax relief for seniors and self- employed workers. And it accelerates the estate tax relief we passed last year. Mr. Speaker, the same Republican Congress that balanced the budget, reformed welfare, saved Medicare, and provided the first tax cut since 1981 is going to save Social Security and provide the American people with the additional tax relief they deserve. I urge my colleagues to stand up for overtaxed Americans and reject the misleading rhetoric emanating from those who want to increase the size and power of the federal government. Vote no on the Rangel substitute. Vote yes for the base bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this rule, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives the office of the President the authority that it needs to make sure the U.S. is speaking with one voice during trade negotiations. A vote for fast track is not a vote for any trade agreement. Any future agreement will be subject to full Congressional scrutiny. It requires the President to consult with Congress before and during negotiations. Also, in the end, Congress gets an up or down vote. If we have any reservations at all with any specific trade agreement, we can simply vote it down. If the United States wants to continue its leadership in the global economy, and I think we do, we must take aggressive steps to expand markets for all of our products throughout the world. This will create more jobs for American workers. In all, over 11 million jobs are supported right now by exports. These jobs pay, believe it or not, 15 percent or more on average. Fast track is crucial to ensure that American business, workers and communities continue to reap the benefits from an expanded market opportunity. American workers are the best in the world. Their creativity, productivity and work ethic is unmatched throughout the globe. Free trade agreements are about giving those workers more, not less, opportunity, and putting the unemployed back on the job. Fast track gives us the tools we need to negotiate these agreements and tear down those barriers to trade and investment. It opens foreign markets and creates new consumers for American products. That is good for American business, and it is even better for the American worker. Do not let our workers be left behind. Support this rule. Support fast track.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government should honor the institution of marriage, not penalize it by imposing higher taxes on married couples. I urge my colleagues to support the 90-10 proposal of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer). The bill sets aside 90 percent of the budget surplus to save Social Security, and returns the additional 10 percent to hard-working taxpayers. The centerpiece of the tax cut of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) injects some fairness into the tax code, and strengthens families by providing some much-needed relief from the marriage penalty. It mirrors a provision that I introduced in a 1997 tax cut initiative. The marriage penalty is unfair, and no one should have to pay it. Mr. Speaker, with 77 million babyboomers nearing retirement age and taxes at an all-time high, we must reject the calls for new spending emanating from the other side. We have an historic opportunity to secure the future of Social Security and provide the American people with the additional tax relief they deserve. Let us seize it now.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise to support the amendment by my colleague from California. As we all know too well, the countries of the Caucasus have been crippled by violence and conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If one were to Nagorno-Karabakh or to Armenia or Azerbaijan, and many in this body have, one would know something about the geography. That, in turn, gives some glimpse of what the conflict is all about. For Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, this reality is worsened by Azerbaijan's devastating blockade of its neighbor. It is especially painful to see a country with the potential of Armenia recede into an economic stone-age at the hands of its neighbors. This is why, in the first place, we adopted section 907 of the Freedom Support Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. It prohibits the delivery of U.S. Government economic or military assistance to the government of Azerbaijan, unless it takes demonstrable steps to cease its blockade. They have not. They have not taken any steps. Section 907 sets reasonable conditions on the use of U.S. foreign aid. We struggled in last year's bill to ensure that it could not prevent vital humanitarian and democracy building assistance or export finance assistance to U.S. business. That took a tremendous amount of struggling, but it did come to completion. However, we cannot repeal section 907 until the conditions for its lifting are met. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan continues its crippling blockade of its neighbors. In addition, the negotiations over the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remain uncertain. Given these facts, these circumstances, now is not the time to reward the government of Azerbaijan. Hopefully, that time will come. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill, H.R. 4569, and I wanted to obviously thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for yielding me this time. He has been, I think, an outstanding individual in terms of shepherding this particular appropriations bill through the process. That is not an easy task. He has done it with diligence, impartiality and I believe with absolute fairness. I commend the gentleman from Alabama. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her work in coming together on a host of important issues, and the staff for all the work they have done to create this bill. Each member of this subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft a foreign aid bill that reflects our Nation's international priorities while maintaining a goal of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. The chairman spoke to that. This bill holds the line on foreign aid spending while maintaining funding for our most important foreign aid priorities. By supporting continued funding for Microenterprise and other development assistance programs, Congress reaffirms our country's crucial role as a leader in strengthening the ever-growing community of prosperous, democratic nations. The bill also maintains the U.S. commitment to the Middle East process and our long-standing ally Israel. It provides $70 million for the resettlement of former Soviet, East European and other refugees in Israel. And while U.S. support for peace in the Middle East is reaffirmed, the bill takes an historic first step toward eliminating the region's long-standing reliance on U.S. economic aid. Furthermore, the committee has ensured that whenever necessary, U.S. funds are focused on reinforcing our vital national security needs. First, the bill contains our strong commitment to the democratization of Russia that addresses my concerns about Russian exports of nuclear and ballistic missile technology. This grave situation is addressed by stipulating that aid to Russia is contingent upon stopping the development of any nuclear program or ballistic missile capability. We are sending a powerful signal to Russia that its interaction with dangerous rogue states like Iran is unacceptable. The bill also highlights congressional concern about the recent activities of another dangerous rogue state, North Korea. Given the very frightening revelations in recent weeks regarding North Korea's offensive capabilities, we must take action. The U.S. must send a signal of its strong disapproval by suspending aid to North Korea until we have real proof that it has ended its dangerous ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program. And finally I would like to add concerns with respect to one particular issue. The bill does contain language repealing Section 907, a provision of law passed by this body, signed into law by President Bush in 1992. Section 907 prohibits direct economic and military aid to the government of Azerbaijan while it continues to blockade its neighbors and has been the centerpiece of U.S. Policy toward the Caucasus for the last 6 years. I am concerned that its repeal may compromise the U.S. role as an unbiased mediator in negotiations to settle the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. This issue will undoubtedly surface again during the bill's consideration. I look forward to a spirited debate, and I hope we will be able to convince some of my colleagues that this may be an inappropriate move at this time. Only through balanced support from the U.S. will we finally see this region free of bloodshed and conflict and rich with prosperity and opportunity. Mr. Chairman, the subject of foreign aid often sparks heated debate on this floor. While we all have strong opinions about a number of programs, I ask my colleagues to not let heated discussions about details keep us from the business at hand. We need to unite behind this fair bill to maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence across the globe. Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members to support this bill, and I thank the gentleman again for yielding me time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, sampling simply does not produce the accuracy, as has been pointed out. So I would say to the gentleman that it is not a substitute. Sampling is not a substitute for accuracy.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise today in opposition to this amendment. While I have worked with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia and found common ground on some significant issues, I must disagree with him on this issue because, based on solid numerical evidence which is against sampling, and the Census Bureau's own research after the 1990 Census Bureau enumeration surveys, sampling did not work in the 1990 census post-enumeration surveys, so why would we expect a similar plan to work for the 2000 census? Merely increasing the sample size will not improve the accuracy of the survey, it will only increase the possibility of error. The Census Bureau's own 1992 CAPE report, Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates, indicated that after the second post enumeration survey, using the improved so-called grouping method, that sampling was inaccurate for areas under 100,000. Many of us have districts with no single area over 100,000. How can we misrepresent such a large percentage of our population? Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Commerce concluded in 1991, that while 29 States would benefit from adjusted counts, 21 would be less accurate, or lose population. We cannot support a plan that is good for some and not for others. Because these numbers are used for apportionment, failing to ensure equal representation is a serious threat to our democracy. Enumerate, not polling, not computer models. Sampling does not equal accuracy. Not only is sampling numerically unreliable, it is inconsistent, as has been pointed out by my friend from Iowa, with the Constitution, which does require actual enumeration. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the President has a right to decide how the census should be directed, which is what he is trying to do. And despite his statement that it was deeply wrong to shut the government down, that was back in 1996, the President has threatened to shut down the Commerce Department, the Justice Department and the State Department in order to implement his administration's plan. However, we should not support political threats with bad policy. Congress and the administration must work together to create a plan that the American people will trust. We must listen to the warnings, as the chairman has pointed out, of the GAO and the Inspector General and create a bilateral plan with the administration that will accurately represent the American people. Mr. Chairman, I firmly suggest we oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for being so gracious in relinquishing that time. I will not take all of it. I will say, Madam Speaker, that I rise in full support of this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for his work in helping bring about the confection of this language. Included in the bill is a provision that I introduced to ensure that a computer owner may authorize the activation of their computer by a third party for the limited purpose of servicing computer hardware components. The bill provides language that authorizes third parties to make such a copy for the limited use of servicing computer hardware, the hardware components. This provision does nothing to threaten the integrity of the Copyright Act, and maintains all the protections under the Act. The intent of the Copyright Act is to protect and encourage a free marketplace of ideas. However, without this provision, it hurts the free market by preventing the ISOs from servicing computers. Furthermore, it limits the computer users' choice of who can service their computer and how competitive a fee can be charged. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for all of his work in helping us along on this.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, yes; and when and if the protocol were ratified after full and open discussion by the Senate, these provisions would be void.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank my colleagues, Representatives Obey and McIntosh, for their discussions on the House floor regarding the fine line between education and advocacy efforts conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I have ongoing concerns that some of the EPA's education activities at times crossed that line and became advocacy efforts. Mr. Obey offered an apt description of education when he explained to Mr. McIntosh during the debate over his amendment, and that his amendment clarifying the DPA's ability to conduct educational outreach was meant to allow only those activities that were objective in nature and presented both sides of the issue in a factual manner. In my view, much of the EPA's past problems have stemmed from its inability to present information in an objective and balanced manner. If information is presented without allowing the airing of both sides, it ceases to be education, and becomes advocacy. There is a fine line between education and advocacy, and the EPA must recognize this distinction and refrain from crossing this line. So, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for helping me to make this very important point. It is my hope that the Obey amendment will help clarify what is the necessary role of the Administration, and compel the EPA to promote balance and objectivity in all its future activities.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The report language simply tries to clarify that EPA has been pushing the envelope with various activities that have been portrayed as being educational in nature but have, in fact, become Kyoto Protocol advocacy activities. We wanted to make it clear that EPA should not be engaged in advocating for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, or through its so-called outreach activities that would actually implement the protocol. It was not our intention to stifle discussion about potential climate change, scientific give and take, research or general educational efforts regarding global climate. This report language was never intended to muzzle EPA. It was, however, needed because we wanted to clear the EPA and the CEQ, but there is a fine line between education and advocacy, and that the EPA should not cross that line. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made this quite clear during the debate on this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be pleased to respond to that. The Senate does indeed have a similar position dealing with this issue. In fact, Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, stated in a colloquy with Senator Bond, that was during the debate on the VA-HUD appropriations, that he agreed. And let me stress this point: He agreed that the EPA should not use appropriated funds for the purpose of issuing regulations to implement the Kyoto Protocol unless and until such treaty is ratified by the U.S. Senate. Both the House and the Senate strongly concur in that position, so it is a bit of a red herring for people to say that this legislation will hamstring EPA or hinder energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction programs that are ongoing.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the gentleman's inquiry about this legislation because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and mischaracterizations regarding the real-world results it might have on EPA. We need this provision in order to assure that EPA does not undertake back-door implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a strong setup of the House based on the debate that we have had. We have seen a trend where EPA is beginning to interpret existing statutes overly broadly and to even create new interpretations of current law. These examples have come out in oversight hearings in both the House and the Senate. The main purpose of the legislative and report language is to ensure that existing regulatory authority is not misused to implement or to serve as a future basis for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in advance of its consideration and approval by the Senate of the United States. We are not trying to cripple or to cancel existing energy conservation programs or to curtail research development and demonstration programs for new, more efficient technologies or to undermine existing environmental law. We are only trying to keep EPA honest. That is our job in Congress, to conduct oversight hearings and to make sure that the Federal agencies live by the letter of the law and the Constitution and to ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Yes, those regulatory activities would be precluded.