Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. No, it does not.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that those activities are still funded and encouraged. In fact, we have increased funding for the global climate change research account within this bill by $10 million.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The United States will live up to its commitments.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman again is correct. And we have good reason to be concerned about EPA's back-door regulatory actions. EPA has repeatedly sought to expand its authority to restrict greenhouse gas emissions where no such authority exists.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I appreciate very much how much he has put into the efforts to come to an agreement on this issue. I am concerned how the EPA will interpret his language. Whether or not the gentleman's amendment is approved today, I look forward to working with him and others to find common ground and clarify the intent of the language. The Member from Wisconsin is bringing up the issue of preserving an open debate on environmental issues. Although he and I may disagree on how we get there, we both agree on the policy of an open and public debate. My work to make sure we do not implement the Kyoto Protocol until we implement ratification specifically was to ensure that we do have the debate, that we do have the debate, as the U.S. Constitution requires, in the U.S. Senate with its advice and consent. Since coming to Congress I have supported an open and public debate concerning environmental issues, including the issue of climate change, clean air, clean water, Superfund, environmental justice, and other important environmental issues. I will continue to work to make sure the EPA does not implement environmental policies through the back door, through regulatory tactics, especially when it does not have the legal authority to proceed forward. There have been some who have claimed the language in this bill concerning the Kyoto Protocol would stifle the debate on climate change. As far as my personal goals on this issue, nothing could be further from the truth. I have been working to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol is not implemented until Senate ratification, as required by the U.S. Constitution. This gives us the open debate this issue so richly deserves. Let us be clear. The language included in this bill does not do anything to interfere with valuable research, existing programs, or ongoing initiatives designed to carry out the United States' voluntary commitments under the 1992 Climate Change Convention. And, education is another function conducted by the EPA. However, it should educate using balanced information without advocacy. The taxpayers deserve a balanced presentation of information. This is especially true when the EPA conducts educational outreach on climate change. I want to caution my colleagues. There is a very fine line between education and advocacy. The EPA should never use taxpayer dollars to advocate their own agenda when it is not the official policy of the United States of America. The EPA must be allowed to serve its primary purpose: To ensure that we have a clean, safe and healthy environment. We may have differing views on how to accomplish this goal, but we must be able to air those differences in the light of day. I will continue to work with my colleagues and fight for open debate on these important issues. I would challenge the EPA to join me in accomplishing this rather modest goal.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support normal trade relations for China and to oppose the resolution. American workers benefit most from normal trading status with China. I think the facts are very clear. If we reject normal trade relations with China, we do not improve the trade deficit, but we will see a substantial loss of exports to China. Now, in my State of Michigan alone there are some $365 million in exports each year. That supports some 5,000 jobs, not over there; they are here, they are in this country, in Michigan. If we translate that into the U.S. situation, it is approximately 25,000 manufacturing jobs each year that are a part of our trade with China. China has been reported as the world's third largest economy after the United States and Japan. It has by far the world's highest annual rate of growth of something like 9 percent, and we cannot, we simply cannot exclude America's companies, farmers, workers, goods and services from this very, very large market. In addition, we must remember that the U.S. trade with China is a way to directly permeate a society which has been closed off to the world for centuries. Increased economic prosperity creates a desire for political freedom among individuals. China's economic reforms which were instituted in the past 20 years have demonstrated that, and I use the word ``engage'', an engaged China is more conducive to change. The record is crystal-clear: personal freedom in China is on the rise, people are living better, the principles of democracy are spreading at the grassroots level, and there is an unquestioned relaxation of control over the press and the media. American principles are spreading in China. Madam Speaker, for the sake of our businesses, our jobs, our workers, not to mention the well-being of the Chinese people, we must reject this resolution. We must not slam the door on one-fourth of the world's population. If we really want to promote human rights and civil rights, and by the way, I do, and we want to plant the seeds of mutual understanding first, then continue normal trade relations. I urge opposition of this resolution.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto treaty on climate change would have a crippling effect on the American economy. This fatally flawed agreement would kill millions of American jobs and diminish the standard of living in this country. Confronted by strong bipartisan opposition in both the House and the Senate, the Clinton administration has repeatedly assured Congress that it would not attempt to implement the Kyoto treaty until it has been ratified by the Senate. Now, despite this promise, there is strong evidence that the EPA has initiated and taken regulatory and other actions that are inconsistent with the administration assurances. This week, when the House considers the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD bill, we will have the opportunity to ensure that the President keeps his word. This bill prohibits the EPA from using taxpayer dollars to issue rules or regulations to implement the Kyoto treaty until it has been ratified by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect our economic interests by supporting the effort to stop the EPA from ramming the Kyoto treaty through the back door.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1853) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I also want to extend thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Louis Stokes). As everybody knows, he is retiring this year. And while he has received a number of accolades, we continue to add to those, and I want to express mine again today. I want to join my colleagues in wishing him a fond farewell. He served the body well, he served his constituents well, and he will be missed. I would also like to thank, in particular, the staff. Frank Cushing, who, as has been mentioned, could not be here today because of his loss. We extend our thoughts and prayers to Frank and his family. I want to, in particular, though, thank this staff, all of them, who have been remarkably and extraordinarily helpful in a whole lot of things, so they deserve a lot of credit for helping us craft this bill. This appropriation bill is unique in that it covers an array of diverse agencies, ranging from the VA to NASA to the EPA. And it is not easy to bring this wide range of interests together into a single bill. However, the chairman, along with the ranking member, have done, I think, a great job by forging a relationship that makes this all possible. H.R. 4194 is a good bill. However, there is one issue I would like to stress. We have reiterated in report language our intent and expectation that HUD will adhere to our guidance and award no funds for insurance-related purposes, even as part of awards to groups that may use their FHIP funds for a variety of enforcement activities. FHIP, as everyone must know, should know, is the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. I further want to emphasize that the report allocates a portion of FHIP appropriations to a nationwide audit of discrimination in housing rentals and sales in 20 communities. Because this proposed audit is part of the FHIP, and because its purpose is to investigate discrimination in housing rentals and sales, there should be no question that any of the funds allocated for it can be used to investigate practices of property insurers. However, because HUD has, in the past, interpreted the Fair Housing Act very liberally, I believe it is necessary to underscore this point. The committee report can only be understood to mean that absolutely no funds, no FHIP funds, including those for the nationwide audit and any awards for packages of activities by private groups, are to be spent on activities focused on practices of property insurers or their agents.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. Regardless of what we might hear, it is an open and fair rule. This rule does nothing to stop an open debate on a very important issue, and that is the Kyoto Protocol. Let me repeat that. The rule does nothing to stop an open debate on a very important issue, the Kyoto Protocol. I am pleased that the we can have an open debate on this issue as the rule provides. There are those who want to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by implementing a treaty before it is ratified by the Senate. The VA-HUD appropriations bill limits funding to implement the Kyoto treaty until the Senate ratification, period. We need this funding limitation. The Kyoto Protocol would have a devastating impact on this economy of ours. It would kill millions of jobs. And I think everybody realizes that it will kill jobs. Even the administration realizes that. That will result in higher prices and significantly a lower standard of living for Americans. As a result, there is strong opposition to this agreement in Congress. And the President simply does not have the votes to win ratification in the Senate. Faced with this dilemma, the Clinton administration is attempting to circumvent the will of Congress by implementing the Kyoto treaty bit by bit, piece by piece, through a series of regulatory actions. Now, it is important to note, what does the Kyoto funding limitation do? It prohibits only certain categories of regulatory activities that have the purpose of implementing the Kyoto Protocol without Senate ratification. It applies only to the development, proposal, and finalization of rules, regulations, orders, and decrees that implement the unratified Protocol or that are designed for such implementation. What does the Kyoto funding limitation not do? Contrary to some claims, it is important to note that this language does not affect existing programs and ongoing activities to carry out the United States' voluntary commitments under the 1992 Climate Change Convention. It does not hinder legitimate climate science research activities or studies or existing funding for research and development. In fact, all other EPA actions and programs funded by this bill for environmental and other purposes, including climate change, are not affected by this limitation. So I would urge my colleagues on both sides, please oppose any attempts to strike the Kyoto funding limitation and support the rule for consideration of VA-HUD.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Fossella amendment. It seems like deja vu. We have been here before. Just a reminder about 1996, during the election cycle, the Democratic National Committee was forced to return over $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations. I was surprised and dismayed by that. The American people were dismayed and, frankly, frustrated over the ability of foreign nationals to wield such influence over our election process without casting a single vote. It is why I introduced H.R. 767, which was the Common Sense Campaign Reform Act. That bill provided a common-sense, three-step approach to address the problems inherent in the current system. One step of the three would prohibit individuals who are not eligible to vote from contributing to candidates for Federal office or political parties. I commend my colleague, Mr. Fossella, for incorporating into his amendment the spirit of H.R. 767. Banning contributions from non-U.S. citizens reinforces the important message that American citizens and only American citizens elect their representatives in government, not foreigners. Now, contrary to what I have heard over here, this is not harmful. It does not need a commission. It simply needs a vote, just like the last time. By the way, this bill is more inclusive than the last bill. It is a better bill in response to the comments over here. Mr. Chairman, foreign influence in our elections has eroded the American people's confidence in our democratic process and left far too many voters feeling demoralized and disenfranchised. While this bill is no sweeping reform effort, it does address one of the system's most glaring problems, the influx of foreign money in our political process. I urge my colleagues to support this vital, common-sense piece of legislation.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I understand the moves that the gentlemen are taking here. It is good to cut spending. Spending is an excess that we could, of course, look at in a number of areas but, very honestly, not at the heart of something like this. The NERI program is designed to reinvigorate the Department of Energy's nuclear energy R&D based on competitive, and I will explain that in just a moment, competitive and peer-reviewed applications concerning such issues as more efficient reactor designs, lower costs, improved safety, better onsite storage techniques and proliferation-resistant reactors. Now PCAST, the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology panel, recommended further nuclear energy research and development to ensure our Nation's nuclear energy program is strong and growing. Specifically they encouraged R&D in the areas of nuclear waste, nonproliferation and nuclear safety. They also expressed a concern about whether nuclear energy is economically viable. With the NERI program we will conduct research that will address these concerns and pave the way for nuclear energy to emerge as a more prominent energy source for the United States. There is no shortage of funding for the other areas of energy supply research. The chairman alluded to that. Last year we appropriated $296 million for solar and renewables R&D. This year we recommended $351 million, and the Senate has over $4 million assigned to solar and renewables. This includes $70 million for photovoltaics, $33 million for wind energy and $101 million for biomass/biofuels research, and fossil energy R&D last year received $362 million and will likely receive a similar amount this year. In contrast, last year nuclear energy received only, the research end of it, only $7 million. This bill has increased the funding level for nuclear energy research to a total of $17 million, $5 million for NERI and $12 million for the university research programs which I also support. Now the gentlemen have talked about some of the money that has been spent in nuclear research. A lot of that was weapons research. Let me tell my colleagues since 1976 we have spent $1.45 billion on solar and renewable energy sources, which generates below 1 percent of this country's electricity supply. Alternatively, since 1973 we have spent $1 billion on nuclear R&D, and nuclear energy plants produced nearly 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, let me remind my colleagues of this, and they produced 40 percent of all new electricity generation since 1973. This year let us make sure we get an appropriate level of funding for nuclear R&D for this year. As I have already stated, it is the safe, clean and reliable energy source to carry us into the future. The NERI program is set up with competitive peer-reviewed research that will be a coordinated effort between the national laboratories, universities and industry. Now what does that mean, competitive peer- reviewed research? What it means is we will get the best science available with no favoritism toward any specific university, Federal laboratory, company or industry. Instead they will have to compete for the research grant, which will ensure we get the best science available, perhaps to a university in one of my colleague's States. There are some who might claim this is corporate welfare. This is simply untrue, and those who are claiming that ought to study the solar and renewable energy research and development which is rife with technology transfer programs and commercialization, and very little, if any, that is peer-reviewed science. To the contrary, the NERI program will be competitive, peer-reviewed research that is basic research to continue this safe, clean, low-emission energy source. The Clinton administration has requested $24 million for this program. I support a higher level of funding. I am glad to see we provide some funding for this important program. Another good reason to support nuclear R&D such as the NERI program is as follows: As many of my colleagues might know, I and some others had the opportunity to attend the global climate change meeting in Kyoto back in December. That is where the administration signed on to an agreement to reduce the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 through 2012. I have been quite critical about the U.S. supporting a treaty which places the U.S. and other industrial nations at a competitive disadvantage to the 132 nations which have no reduction requirements. In Kyoto, Japan was a strong proponent for placing strict reductions on greenhouse gas emissions on the industrial nations. However, they also have an existing plan for reaching their reduction requirement. With 44 existing commercial nuclear power plants already, they have a construction plan to build at least 20 more. Since nuclear power emits no greenhouse gas emissions, this alone will allow them to reach their reduction target. In the U.S. there appears to be no similar plan to use new commercial nuclear energy plants to reduce the U.S.'s greenhouse gas emissions, and in fact in a deregulated electricity market we may see some of our older plants shut down. We have a great opportunity, I believe, to bring America back to the option of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy such as they have in Europe and Japan and elsewhere has provided safe, reliable energy, a source that does not emit greenhouse gases. Support the NERI program. Make sure the best nuclear minds in the world are right here in the U.S. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for this bill, but first I, too, want to pay tribute to a gentleman who has become my friend. I am sorry that the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is not here, he will be along shortly, but let me just pay for a moment tribute to the man that I believe has earned the respect of this whole House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Joe McDade). Along with Vic Fazio, their spirit of cooperation is commendable. But the competence and the thoughtfulness of Joe McDade, his years of hard work, it will take many of us to fill the congressional shoes of Chairman Joe McDade. His character, his warmth, and, speaking on a personal note, his kindness and courtesy to me, and the fact that he is truly a gentleman in every respect, I will truly miss him, his counsel, his guidance, but never, however, his friendship. I will keep that. Along with Chairman McDade, I see that Mr. Fazio is here now, and I will extend and salute a hail, how are you. Certainly, as well, the competence of this man, Vic Fazio, and his ability to work both sides of the aisle, has been something that I think this committee has benefitted by and this House has benefitted by. Along with Joe McDade and Vic Fazio, I would like to salute efforts by the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development staff for bringing this strong bill to the floor. The administration's budget request, especially the funding shortfall they created in the water projects, was unworkable, if not irresponsible. This bill is responsible and balanced. Just a few portions I would like to focus on. This year the administration more than doubled the budget request for climate change initiatives, creating a $1.7 billion government-wide umbrella to fund existing and new programs. Since the Senate has not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it seems the administration has put the cart in front of the horse. I wanted to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman McDade) and the subcommittee staff for taking my concerns about Kyoto into account in this year's bill. Specifically I am pleased that the committee provided none of the $100 million increase requested by the administration to further research towards the goals of meeting the Kyoto Accord. Also the committee was critical of the administration's tendency to devote half of its resources to advanced policy instead of conducting scientific research. The $27 million was cut to $13.5 million, in half, to reflect this criticism. Furthermore, I support this bill's focusing on closing out the former defense and nuclear facilities. When I was first assigned to this Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, the Department of Energy reported we would not complete clean up of the environmental management sites until after the year 2075, with a total cost of some $230 billion. We are now looking to close all of the small EM sites and even some the larger sites, including Fernald in Ohio and Rocky Flats in Colorado by the year 2006. The reduction of landlord costs may be in the tens of billions of dollars. Frankly, I also want to express my strong support for the nuclear energy and research initiative, NERI, and the nuclear energy water research grant program. I am pleased have we have included $5 million for the NERI program. This program is designed to reinvigorate the Department of Energy's nuclear energy R&D based on competitive and peer-reviewed applications concerning such issues as more efficient reactor designs, lower costs, improved safety, better on-site storage and proliferation resistant reactors. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this important R&D program and I urge support for the energy and water appropriations bill

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for being down here for what we consider a very large, extraordinary Michigan moment, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3808. Carl Pursell is a lifelong Michigan resident. He served, as you probably caught from my colleagues, eight terms in this body. He was a friend of mine. I sought his counsel, in fact, on a very important matter because I represent part of his district. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) spoke to the fact that he lost out in some reapportionment matter in 1992, and so I am very familiar with not just Carl Pursell but also his constituents. From his position on the Committee on Appropriations, Carl utilized his experience as a former educator to become a national leader on education. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Carl was instrumental in improving the quality of the local schools in the district and making the University of Michigan one of the premier institutions of higher learning in this country. He also was responsible for securing funding that enabled Madonna University, which is a private college in my district, to offer a degree program for interpreters for the hearing- impaired. Prior to being elected to Congress in 1976, Carl served, as I believe my colleague mentioned also, on the Wayne County Board of Commissioners and in the Michigan State Senate. His dedication to public service was second to none, and his accomplishments, I believe, reflect the commitment and tireless effort he put into his work as a legislator. As has been mentioned, he currently resides in Plymouth, Michigan with his wife Peggy, and is making a difference in that community even today by serving on the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for introducing this bill to designate the United States Post Office located at Clipper Drive in Plymouth as the Carl D. Pursell Post Office. Carl was responsible for securing the funding to build this post office, and I believe it is only appropriate that it bear his name.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's vote on the Gilman amendment is good news for the opponents of the Kyoto treaty. By a vote of 420 to 0, 420 to 0, the House voted to protect the quality of our national defense by exempting the U.S. military operations from the Kyoto treaty's stringent requirements. I applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to continue fighting against this treaty, because it is not just bad for the military. This overreaching agreement would have a negative effect on virtually every sector of our economy and result in fewer jobs, higher prices, and a lower standard of living for the American people. Along with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), I have introduced a bill, the American Economy Protection Act, that would prevent even $1 of taxpayer money from being spent to implement the provisions of the Kyoto treaty until it has been ratified by the Senate. With the President attempting to circumvent the Constitution by implementing the Kyoto treaty through regulatory actions, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It ensures that the Kyoto agreement is debated in the light of day and not rammed through the back door.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 1997, the United States became a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, or so-called global warming treaty. They did this despite the fact that the treaty went against the unanimous advice of the Senate. In Kyoto, the administration completely ignored the Senate position and did exactly the opposite. Now there is wide concern that the administration is working proactively to implement the Kyoto targets through the back door. Part of this stems from the EPA indicating its plan to draft new clean air rules enacting portions of the Kyoto protocol. That is why I introduced the American Economy Protection Act, H.R. 3807, which will ensure that the Kyoto Protocol is not implemented through the regulatory process. H.R. 3807 would prevent the administration from implementing this dangerous treaty in the absence of Senate ratification by requiring that Federal funds cannot be used for rules, regulations, or programs designed to execute the Kyoto Protocol. This bill maintains the integrity of the United States Constitution and supports continued economic growth in this country. I urge support of this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, we have just gone through an exercise talking about the rule of law. The White House has recently become remarkably solicitous of the privacy rights of convicted felons. While the coddling of criminals is nothing new for liberals, what is new is the idea that the White House cares about privacy rights for the law-abiding. I ask the White House, what about the privacy rights of the 900 Republicans whose FBI files ended up in the hands of political operatives in the White House? What about the privacy rights of Billy Dale and the other Travel Office employees? Rights which were trampled upon by the IRS and the FBI in a despicable smear campaign. In this strange new world, privacy rights are reserved for convicted criminals and denied to the innocent. Mr. Speaker, this entire episode is a perfect example of the liberal mindset when it comes to crime: Misplaced priorities, double standards, and always, always, always, preference for the rights of criminals over the rights of the law-abiding.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the achievements of the Harrison High School football team in Farmington Hills, Michigan. The Harrison High School football team, with a 46-8 record in 16 playoff appearances and eight state titles under their belts, are true champions in every sense of the word. Most recently, the Hawks added the 1997 Class ``A'' State Championship to their long list of accomplishments. In addition to their athletic prowess, the team also holds the eighth highest grade point average in the state with a 3.67 average GPA. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating these talented young athletes, Jory Hannan of the football program, and the many others who were an integral part of the Hawk's tremendous success.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I joined my colleagues, JoAnne Emerson and Ron Klink, to introduce a bill to protect the economy of the United States. Specifically, this bill will prohibit the use of federal funds for any implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change until Senate ratification. This bill is companion language to Senator Ashcroft's bill S. 2019. The Kyoto Protocol requires the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2008- 2012. Other industrialized nations must meet a similarly strict timetable. Meanwhile, the Kyoto Protocol exempts 132 developing nations, including China, India, Brazil, and Mexico, from any greenhouse gas reduction, even though these four nations alone are expected to emit half of the world's greenhouse gases by the year 2050. This creates a two-tiered environmental obligation, forcing the entire burden to reduce greenhouse emissions on industrialized nations while turning the developing world into a pollution enterprise zone. This won't eliminate greenhouse gases, or succeed in reversing global warming, it will just change their point of production. American families receive the brunt of the burden imposed by the Kyoto Protocol. The Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates (WEFA), a well respected economic firm, has estimated the Kyoto Protocol would result in Americans paying 50 cents more for a gallon of gasoline and more than $2,000 per American household. WEFA also estimates the Protocol could result in the United States losing over a million jobs each year over a 15 year period. Even the Clinton Administration, strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, admit it could add $70 to $110 to the average American household's annual energy bill. And these estimates were based on several highly optimistic assumptions by White House economists. Furthermore, the United States Department of Energy studied the impact the Kyoto Protocol will have on six major manufacturing industries. Results indicate that the Kyoto targets and timetables to limit greenhouse gas emissions are tantamount to pink slips for the American worker. Studying petroleum refining, pulp and paper making, cement, steel, basic chemicals, and aluminum, the Department of Energy forecasts hundreds of thousands of American jobs lost and the suppliers for these materials moving to developing nations. Again, worldwide emissions won't be reduced, they will be shipped overseas, just like American jobs. The U.S. Constitution confers on the Senate the responsibility to evaluate a treaty on its merits and then to give or withhold its advice and consent. As an indicator of where the Senate stands on this issue, last year the Senate passed S. Res. 98 by a vote of 95-0, expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should not sign onto any treaty placing America at a competitive disadvantage during the climate change negotiations in Kyoto, Japan. In Kyoto, the Clinton Administration completely ignored the Senate position, and did exactly the opposite. Now, there is wide concern that the Administration is working proactively to implement the Kyoto targets through regulatory fiat. Part of this stems from the Environmental Protection Agency indicating its plan to draft new Clean Air rules enacting portions of the Kyoto Protocol. The American Economy Protection Act will insure that the Kyoto Protocol is not implemented through the regulatory process. The Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom provided that the Senate should be a check and balance on international treaties through the ratification process. This bill maintains the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and supports continued economic growth in the United States. I urge your support of this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Jo Ann Emerson) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ron Klink), to introduce a bill to protect our strong and growing economy. The bill, entitled The American Economy Protection Act, would prevent the Clinton administration from spending taxpayer dollars to implement the Kyoto treaty until it has been ratified by the Senate. This overreaching treaty poses a direct threat to the American economy. If implemented, American jobs would flow overseas and the American people would be saddled with regulations that will diminish the quality of life in this country. Lacking the votes to win ratification in the Senate, the administration wants to circumvent the will of Congress and implement the Kyoto treaty by regulatory fiat. As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to ensure that this does not happen. And again, I want to repeat, our bill would prohibit, prohibit, the funds for any implementation of the Kyoto protocol unless it is ratified by the Senate. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in supporting this important bill. It will protect the jobs of our constituents and defend the integrity of the Constitution.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the U.N. treaty on climate change that was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan last December is a bum deal for this country. If ratified, this overreaching agreement would result in fewer American jobs, higher prices, a lower standard of living, and it will not reduce emissions. Fortunately, there is strong opposition to this treaty in Congress, and the Clinton administration does not have the votes to win ratification in the Senate. However, faced with this dilemma, it appears the President will attempt to implement his policy objectives through regulatory fiat, executive orders and stealth tactics; regulatory end runs. Congress must not allow this to happen. We must fight to defend our economic interests and we must fight to protect the integrity of the legislative process. To do anything less would be a grave disservice to the American people. In yesterday's Investor's Business Daily, there is an editorial which highlights the Clinton administration's attempt to circumvent the will of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read it and join in the effort to ensure that the Kyoto treaty is dealt with in the appropriate manner: in the light of day.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in commemorating the Armenian genocide. I hope other Members of the House will join us in commemorating this 83rd anniversary. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ``genocide'' as, and I quote, ``the deliberate extermination of a people or a nation.'' When most people hear this word, they immediately think of Adolf Hitler and his persecution of the Jews during World War II. Most individuals that you meet on the street are unaware that the first genocide of the 20th Century occurred during World War I, and was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people. The tactics utilized by the Ottoman Empire were every bit as brutal and deliberate as those used by Hitler. Concerned that the Armenian people would move to establish their own government, the Ottoman Empire embarked on a reign of terror that resulted in the massacre of over a million and a half Armenians. This atrocious crime began on April 15, 1915, when the Ottoman Empire arrested, exiled, and eventually killed hundreds of Armenians; the religious, the political, and the intellectual leaders. Once they had eliminated the Armenian people's leadership, they turned their attention to the Armenians that were serving in the Ottoman army. These soldiers were disarmed. They were placed in labor camps where they were either starved or were executed. The Armenian people, lacking any political leadership, then were deprived of all of the young able-bodied men who could fight against the onslaught, were then deported from every region of Turkish Armenia. The images of atrocities endured by these men and women are as graphic and as haunting as the ones that are etched in our minds from the Holocaust. Why, then, are so many people unaware of the Armenian genocide? I believe the answer can be found in the international communities; response to this disturbing event. Simply put, the unspeakable crimes against the Armenian people were essentially ignored. At the end of World War I, those responsible for ordering and implementing the Armenian genocide were never brought to justice, and the world casually forgot about the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Armenian people. This proved to be a grave mistake. In 1939, in a speech before his invasion of Poland, Hitler justified his brutal tactics with the infamous statement, ``Who today remembers the Armenians.'' And 6 years after his speech, 6 million Jews have been exterminated by the Nazis. As has been repeated on the floor this evening already, never has the phrase, ``those who forget the past will be destined to repeat it,'' been more true and more applicable. If the international community had spoken out against this merciless slaughtering of the Armenian people instead of ignoring it, the horrors of the Holocaust might never have taken place. As we commemorate the 83rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide, I believe it is time to give this event its rightful place in history. That is why we gather tonight to honor the memories of the victims of the genocide that occurred 83 years ago. So let us pay homage to those who fell victim to their Ottoman oppressors and tell the story of the forgotten genocide, the forgotten genocide. For the sake of the Armenian heritage, it is a story that must be heard, and it must be remembered.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield for a moment?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise today in strong support of the Illegal Foreign Contributions Act of 1998. As everyone knows, during the 1996 election cycle the Democratic National Committee was forced to return over $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations. I join the American people in shock to realize the frustration over the ability of foreign nationals to wield such power, such influence over our election process without casting a single vote. That is why I introduced H.R. 767, called the Common Sense Campaign Finance Reform Act. This bill provided a common sense three-step approach to address the problems inherent in the current system. One step would prohibit individuals who are not eligible to vote from contributing to candidates for Federal office or political parties. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for incorporating into his bill the spirit of H.R. 767 and, of course, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his work. Banning contributions from non-U.S. citizens reinforces the important message that American citizens and only American citizens elect their representatives in government, not foreigners. Madam Speaker, foreign influence on our elections has eroded the American people's confidence in our democratic process and left far too many voters feeling demoralized and disenfranchised. While this bill is no sweeping reform effort, it does address one of the system's most glaring problems, the influx of foreign money in our political process. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.