Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, this bill, and by the way my colleague may have just seen it, but it has been there for a year. It was a part of a larger bill that I introduced. But let me just say that I am talking about the individual that writes a check must be a citizen. It is that simple.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3246, the Fairness to Small Business and Employees Act. I believe it strikes a unique balance that gives the more than 22 million small businesses in America relief against a very well-fortified bureaucratic NLRB, and gives employees something called ``justice on time'' to get their jobs back. Title I, as we have heard, deals with the unions' practice of salting; some might say espionage, but it is salting, they say. It is unfortunate that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have succumbed to the typical union practice of never letting the facts get in the way of a good story. Title I sends a clear message that if a paid union employee's primary purpose is to work for the employer, he or she is protected. If, however, that person is found to be there to disrupt or inflict economic hardship on an employer, the law will not and it should not protect them. Title II codifies the NLRB's longstanding practice of giving employers the right to argue before the Board whether a single site, and this has been repeated over and over this afternoon, whether a single site should be considered part of a bargaining unit. The Board's promotion of a one-size-fits-all approach was ill-conceived, it ignores reality, and it is inflexible in today's competitive global economy, which has also been pointed out. Title III ensures that employees, their families and children, should not have to wait over a year for resolution of their cases, for over a year. The Board's bureaucratic practice thumbs its nose at these hardworking men and women by taking a median time of almost 600 days, and in some cases, 800 days to decide their fate. That is wrong, it is unacceptable, and it is frankly disrespectful. H.R. 3246 corrects this by making the NLRB issue a final decision within a year. This is justice on time. Title IV, finally, protects the little guy against the heavy-handed lawyer-fortified NLRB. It will make the Board think twice before they bring a case against a small business or a labor organization. I did say labor organization. If they lose, the Board, not the little guy, should pay for the attorneys' fees and the expenses the company or the union had to spend to defend itself. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a fair and balanced bill. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage. It is common sense.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, when considering the tax burden imposed on the American people today, I am reminded of an observation that was made by Mark Twain: ``What's the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin.'' According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the average American family is now paying more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined. That, I believe, is an outrage. Working families should be allowed to take care of their basic needs before being required to finance the whims of politicians. Last year's tax cut did improve the situation, but more work needs to be done. If we exercise the courage and discipline to cut wasteful spending and make the Federal Government more efficient, the American people can have some of their money back. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing. Let us cut taxes again, this time for everybody, so working Americans can then keep more of their hard-earned money. They can spend their money better than we can. Let us allow them to do so.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the oversight delegation that attended the negotiations over the U.N. treaty on climate change, I am absolutely outraged by U.N. official Raul Estrada's comments about congressional opposition to the overreaching Kyoto Accord. As I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Estrada and the rest of the world need to understand that, as representatives of the United States, our first obligation is to protect America's interests. The Kyoto treaty places the entire burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on developed nations and most particularly the United States, while giving developing nations like China, India, Mexico and Brazil a free pass. This would impose unrealistic burdens on the American people and significantly lower the standard of living of our country. Make no mistake about it, if this treaty goes through, we will lose jobs and our citizens will pay more for goods and services. Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the world may have an interest in seeing America's economy suffer, we do not. I urge my colleagues to remain firm in their opposition to the Kyoto treaty on climate change.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are all trying to be green, I found an article in today's paper that disturbed my festive mood. It seems the UN's Global Climate envoy was in Washington yesterday bad-mouthing the United States Congress because we are asking the questions that President Clinton is refusing to ask about the Global Climate Treaty agreed to in Kyoto. He said the U.S. should perhaps get more in touch with the rest of the world and that this Congress is acting as if the rest of the world does not exist. Now the President may want to blindly follow the UN and their global climate folies, but I and many others are not ready to send our jobs overseas and our economy into the tank because the UN says we should. And if this treaty is so great, then how come China, India, and Mexico are not willing to commit to emissions reductions? On a day when I hope to be green, I am blue.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of Lithuania as they celebrate their independence day. Lithuania has known a long history both brave and tragic. Despite a proud past, the people of Lithuania endured the forcible incorporation of the homeland into the former Soviet Union. After fifty one years of Soviet domination, Lithuania successfully overcame these oppressive efforts, and declared its independence on March 11, 1990. Independence did not come easily. Ten months after this restoration of independence, the newly free Lithuania withstood a bloody and lethal assault from a stronger Soviet Union, an end to its supply of Soviet oil and gas, and 15 protesters killed in Vilnius by Soviet troops. These acts, however, were not enough to subdue the spirit of the Lithuanian people. The fire of freedom was fueled by the will of the people, and by the brave leaders of the region. Since Lithuania regained its independence on March 11, 1990, the United States has played a critical role in helping it implement democratic and free market reforms and solidify its position as a European democracy. Together, the United States and Lithuania have worked to maintain strength and security throughout Europe. Earlier this year, the United States and Lithuania signed the Baltic Charter. The Charter recalls this region's tragic history, and underscores that the U.S. has a ``real, profound, and enduring'' interest in the security and independence of all three Baltic countries. In hope it is sign of the deepening of mutual cooperation and shared interests between our two countries for years to come. Mr. Speaker, the people of Lithuania committed themselves to take a stand against repression and communism. And today, they celebrate the fruits of that commitment on their independence day. I comment the people of Lithuania for their courage and perseverance in using peaceful means to regain their independence, and I hope you will join me in wishing them the best on this historic day.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Tara Lipinsky on her outstanding accomplishment on behalf of the United States of America, winning as she did the Olympic gold in women's figure skating at Nagano. Ms. Lipinsky, the youngest person to ever win a gold medal in an individual event in winter Olympics history, has made all America proud with her wonderful performances. The grace and elegance that Tara Lipinsky brings to her skating is invigorating, and the drive and determination that she has exercised to develop her talent sets a shining example for all of us. Ms. Lipinsky, along with fellow Olympians Todd Eldredge, Jerod Swallow, Elizabeth Punsalan, Jessica Joseph and Charles Butler, all Olympians, all trained at the Detroit Skating Club in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. As the Member of Congress with the great honor to represent Michigan's 11th Congressional District, which by the way includes Bloomfield Hills, it is also my home, I would like to take this opportunity to also congratulate the coaches, the family members, and everyone else that was involved that make the Detroit Skating Club one of the best training facilities for ice skaters in the world. Mr. Speaker, Tara Lipinsky's victory has touched hearts around the world and made the citizens of my district and across the country extremely proud. We owe all our Olympic athletes a hearty well done and congratulations.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, America needs an across-the-board income tax cut. The average American family still pays more in taxes than it spends on food, clothing and shelter. This Congress, I think, has an obligation to cut taxes again. Last year's tax cut was a positive step in the right direction, but it did not go far enough, for far too many Americans received little or no benefit at all, particularly singles and seniors. Instead of picking winners and losers among overtaxed Americans, it is time to cut taxes across the board. I have introduced a bill, the Taxpayer Relief and Protection Act, that would cut marginal income tax rates 5 percent across the board. This tax cut will ensure that every American who earns a paycheck will be able to keep a little more of their hard-earned money. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Taxpayer Relief and Protection Act. An across-the-board income tax cut is the fairest way to provide the American people with the additional tax relief that they need and deserve.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that the following statement be included in the Congressional Record. The attached resolution was adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Oakland County, Michigan, regarding the recently passed international treaty on global climate change. I have already voiced my very strong concerns with this treaty, which will require legally binding cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions. By exempting all developing nations, the treaty will create 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 will have a devastating impact on American jobs. Oakland County agrees, and offers this resolution to express its grave concerns with the impact cutbacks will have on jobs and economic growth. Mr. Speaker, please accept this statement in the Congressional Record. Oakland County is sending us a powerful message about how these drastic cutbacks will affect our nation's local communities. As the current administration plans to implement the bureaucratic regulations needed to bring the U.S. in compliance with the recently adopted treaty, Congress must acknowledge this warning. The following is a representative copy containing all amendments to: Miscellaneous Resolution #97227. By: Commissioner Shelley Taub, District #12; Commissioner Donn L. Wolf, District #19. In re: United Nations Climate Change Treaty Opposition. To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: Whereas the Michigan Association of Counties, the National Association of Counties and SEMCOG have recommended support for the following concepts in the main body of the resolution; and Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in May, 1992 at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro and calls upon industrialized nations to aim towards voluntarily limiting their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000; and Whereas ongoing international negotiations are underway aimed at finalizing a Climate Treaty by the end of 1997 that is expected to require legally-binding cutbacks in energy usage and emission targets that will be applicable to developed nations only; and Whereas a growing body of economic studies indicate that any U.S. effort to significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions in a short time frame will slow economic growth, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in Oakland County and throughout the United States, and discourage investments in more energy-efficient technologies or facilities; and Whereas mandatory constraints on fossil fuel use would raise the monthly cost to consumers for electricity, heating and cooling bills. Projections also indicate that the residents of Oakland County could experience a gasoline price increase of up to $0.50 per gallon. This would be particularly detrimental to those on fixed incomes, living in rural areas or dependent on private vehicles to transport their families to work, school and stores; and Whereas ill-advised policies on climate control change could significantly limit personal mobility, seriously disrupt the growing economy of Oakland County and would negatively impact those businesses located in Oakland County that could no longer compete effectively against their foreign counterparts as a result of the higher cost of fuel; and Whereas the exemption for developing countries is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change, is environmentally flawed and imposes trade disadvantages. The Climate Treaty will inflict serious harm to Oakland County's economy with the loss of manufacturing jobs, as the incentive to move industry abroad to exempt, high-growth countries such as Mexico, China and Brazil is heightened; and Whereas the Oakland County Board of Commissioners holds that the United States should not agree to any international global climate proposals that are not justified by sound scientific and economic policies. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners strongly supports MAC, NACo and SEMCOG, and urges that the United States not be signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would: (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the United States, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries within the same compliance period, or (B) result in job loss or serious harm to the economy of Oakland County, the State of Michigan and the United States; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, signed by the United States at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, should: (1) be voluntary as much as possible; (2) include all nations, developed and developing, under comparable criteria and within the same compliance period; (3) assist developing nations in growing economically while increasing energy efficiency; and (4) promote technology approaches that can reduce adverse impacts on consumers and the economy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the United States Senate are strongly urged not to consent to any protocol or agreement regarding the Global Climate Change, unless said protocol or agreement is: (i.) accompanied by an analysis of the detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that would be required to implement the protocol or agreement; and (ii.) accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States that would be incurred by implementation of the protocol or agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, Senator Spencer Abraham, Senator Carl Levin, Oakland County Legislators, the Governor of the State of Michigan, and to Oakland County's Legislative Agents. Chairperson, we move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Shelley Taub, District #12. Donn L. Wolf, District #19. Vote on resolution, as amended: AYES: Huntoon, Johnson, Law, McCulloch, McPherson, Moffin, Obrecht, Palmer, Powers, Schmid, Taub, Wolf, Amos, Dingeldey, Douglas, Garfield. (16) NAYS: Holbert, Jacobs, Jensen, Kingzett, Coleman. (5) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution, as amended, was adopted.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Callahan, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 2159. Each member of this subcommittee in both the House and the Senate have worked very, very hard in a bipartisan fashion to craft a bill that reflects, I think, our Nation's international priorities, while maintaining the fiscal responsibility. I commend the House and the Senate chairmen for continuing our strong commitment to the Middle East, and also to democracy in Russia, while addressing the grave concerns we have about Russia and their exports of nuclear ballistic missile technology to Iran. The conference report so stipulates that aid to Russia is contingent upon stopping the spread of any technology which would bolster Iran. Finally, I am very pleased with provisions in the conference report dealing with the ongoing conflicts in the Caucasus. The conference report provides, and I think most importantly, to include a recommendation for $12.5 million in aid to meet the pressing needs of the people in the Nagorno Karabagh. I commend the managers for recognizing the tremendous humanitarian aid that is needed in the Nagorno Karabagh and look forward to working with the body and administration to ensure that that vital funding is delivered promptly and in accordance with congressional intent. Members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank all of them, and thank again. The gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Callahan, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and all of those who contributed to the difficult decisions made to bring this bill to the floor. I believe the managers have united to craft a bill that will maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence across the globe. I ask for Members to support this conference report.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], for the work that he has done on this bill in fashioning it as he did and allowing my inclusion. What I would like to speak about is that H.R. 764 includes a provision, and by the way, I do support this bill, includes a provision that addresses an injustice that exists within Title XI of the United States Code regarding single asset bankruptcies. This provision is similar to legislation that I introduced in H.R. 73, and I thank the entire committee again for bringing this bill to the floor today. The injustice within Title XI stems from an eleventh hour action, call it 11:59, during the 103d Congress that placed an arbitrary $4 million ceiling on single asset provisions in the bill. The affect has been to render investors helpless in foreclosures on single assets that were valued over $4 million. H.R. 764 will provide some relief to victims of this arbitrary $4 million ceiling by raising the ceiling to $15 million. While I am glad to see we are moving in the right direction, I frankly believe we should eliminate the arbitrary ceiling altogether. Under this law, Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Code serves as a legal shield for the debtor. While in Chapter 11, the debtor will continue to collect the rents on this commercial asset. There is a problem. The problem is that the commercial property will typically be left to deteriorate and the property taxes go unpaid. When the investor finally recovers the property through the delayed foreclosure, they owe an enormous amount of back taxes, they receive a commercial property left in deterioration which has lower rent value and lower resale value, and, meanwhile, the rent for all the months or years they were trying to retain the property went to an uncollectable debtor. It is also worth noting that H.R. 764 does not leave the debtor without protection. First, the investor brings a foreclosure against a debtor only as a last resort; and, second, the debtor has up to 90 days to reorganize under Chapter 11. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 764. While I feel that we should eliminate the arbitrary ceiling on single-asset bankruptcies, this bill moves us in the right direction by making it harder for individuals to game the system.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Madonna University on its 50th anniversary. Founded in 1947 by the Felician Sisters of Livonia, Madonna University has grown from a student body of 9 to one of 4,000. Throughout the years, Madonna has undergone many changes. In 1962, Madonna expanded its curriculum to include a 4-year degree program in nursing. In 1972, men were admitted for the first time to degree programs and Madonna's curriculum was expanded to include programs in criminal justice, radiologic technology, and fire protection and occupational safety. In 1975, Madonna initiated a interpreting program for communication with deaf persons and the first deaf students were admitted to the college. In 1991, Madonna College was renamed Madonna University. Madonna University is one of the gems in my congressional district. This institution of higher learning provides dedicated students with the opportunity to develop their skills and receive a first class education. It is with great appreciation that I extend my congratulations to the board of trustees, President Sister Mary Francilene, the alumni, and the students of Madonna University.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. I have some concerns about H.R. 2920 that have been raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce]. I do believe that section 110 of this immigration reform bill does require some revision, or some study. As a Representative from Michigan, a State which shares a wide border with Canada, I have strong concerns about the impact that section 110 may have on States all across the northern border. Implementation of this system would slow commerce to a virtual standstill. Let me give Members an example in my State of Michigan. For example, in Detroit alone, in Port Huron, some 30,000 motorists, actually more than that, 30,000, at the Ambassador Bridge alone cross daily. In fact, the President of the International Bridge Company has testified that that could result in backups, delays, and I am talking about people that work on both sides of the river, both sides, it would back up traffic perhaps halfway to Flint, Michigan, 40 or 50 miles, and on the Canadian side even further. In particular, this system would cripple the automotive industry and the local economy which, as Members, know depends upon just in time deliveries. What I would like to do, if I could, I wanted to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman to make a determination, and I think the way the bill reads right now is that border crossings will not be substantially impeded. We have a great deal at risk here. I wanted to get the gentleman's assurance that that would be the case.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to just say that I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] has an idea that is shared by a number of others. We want to do what obviously is best. We have some time now to do that. I thank the gentleman for making a clarification.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the vast majority of Americans feel that nobody in Washington is on their side. Consider the IRS, as some speakers have already. For too long and for too many times, this agency has acted in an arrogant, heavy-handed fashion, running roughshod over hard-working taxpayers. Fortunately, I believe Congress has listened to the American people and is now on the verge of passing a bill that will provide taxpayers with some much needed protections against the abuses of the IRS. This bill makes it easier for taxpayers to recover legal fees when the IRS is wrong. It allows taxpayers to sue the IRS for up to $100,000 for negligent collection practices, and most important, it shifts the burden of proof in court cases from a taxpayer to the IRS. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to stick up for the American people by standing up to the IRS. I urge my colleagues to support this important IRS reform.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the House is scheduled to vote this week on a matter essential to the economic vitality of this country, a vote to extend fast track trade negotiating authority to the President. Fast track is a crucial partnership between the President and Congress. My colleagues will remember that Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush all used this authority to negotiate open markets with foreign governments in good faith. The United States has benefited from these negotiations. Since fast track expired in 1994, foreign governments have refused to enter into trade negotiations with the United States. These countries continue to open trade and investments for their own companies and their own workers, while retaining barriers against U.S. exports. Without fast track, we risk being left behind. It does not force Congress to give up its power to oversee the negotiations. Congress simply agrees to vote on a completed trade agreement without any changes. Fast track is critical to this country, to the U.S. leadership in the global economy. Support the extension of fast track.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 923, a bill to deny veterans burial benefits to persons convicted of Federal capital offenses. I would also like to commend the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Stump, for his guidance in bringing this important bill before the House. On June 18, I introduced H.R. 1955 which is similar to the legislation before the House today. As a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee, I felt it was necessary and appropriate to introduce this legislation after the Senate passed S. 923 by a vote of 98 to 0. As pictures of the Oklahoma City bombing were brought into the lives of everyone across this great country, no one watched with more horror than I did. It will always remain ingrained in our hearts, our minds, and our souls. Like the rest of the Nation, I was saddened more by the fact the person responsible for killing 168 people in the most heinous domestic terrorist act ever committed could receive a hero's burial with taps, a 21-gun salute, and a flag-draped coffin. S. 923 is the right thing to do. Our Nation's veterans' cemeteries are sacred ground, and they are a solemn and sad reminder of the price our Nation has paid for the freedom we enjoy every day. It is wrong for those veterans and their dependents to live with the thought that someone who has killed so many innocent lives on our own soil could be laid to rest next to these fallen heroes. I commend Chairman Stump and the rest of the Veterans' Committee for their diligence on this issue. I would also like to thank the chairman for allowing me to testify before his committee on this very issue. All of us, including myself, who served in our armed services are thankful for his leadership to ensure our Nation's cemeteries remain sacred. General Leave

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 536, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1270. I also want to salute the original drafter of this bill, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], for his work. I want to talk a little bit about safety. I want to also talk about Halloween for a moment, because it seems Halloween is not until Friday but the gloom and doom stories have already begun. The myths about a ``mobile Chernobyl'' are about as credible as the legend of the headless horseman. I know that transportation is a problem. Some Members have spoken about that. Safety is a problem, as well. I want to speak to both of those issues quickly. Consider the record: 30 years of experience, 2,400 shipments of spent nuclear fuel, over 1.5 million miles logged in this country, does not include the 100 million miles that the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] talked about on the nuclear weapons side, and all of this movement with zero radioactive releases and no harm to the environment or American citizens. The casks are engineered safe. They are tested, they are demonstrated, and they are certified safe by the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for transportation. I would like to focus on this chart. These are some of the tests that have taken place with respect to the casks. They include a 30-foot free-fall; a puncture test onto a steel rod, 6 inches, dropped from a height; a collision, get this, a collision with a speeding locomotive at 80 miles per hour; and fire at over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. I know the chart says 1475, but beyond that it has gone over 2,000. If that is not enough, these same casks were submerged underwater for 8 hours, all with no radiological releases. This technology is currently being used around the globe, so these casks are safe. Opponents argue that H.R. 1270 infringes on State and local jurisdictions. We already heard a little bit about that. But, rather, H.R. 1270 requires advance notification to State and local governments before spent fuel crosses their jurisdiction and the defers to the States on designating the best routes. Transportation is safe. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would the Health Effects Institute, HEI, be an example of the type of independent research institute that was suggested in the conference report that should have priority to undertake this work?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the distinguished chairman for his time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am pleased to see that the conferees saw the need and the value to conduct a near-term research program for PM2.5 immediately. Specifically, as an initial phase of the program, the conferees noted the ongoing efforts to conduct research as well as the need to conduct new research with the goal to start and rapidly complete before the next NAAQS review in 2002. This would be in coordination with NAS and target broad-based research program, intensively peer-reviewed research in line with the near-term priorities that the gentleman cites, and to fully reanalyze the key epidemiologic studies in this program. We have heard estimates that successful completion of this near-term research would be in the range of $5 million. I would ask the chairman, does this agree with the estimates that have been suggested to him?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. President Clinton has stepped up efforts to force compliance with the treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions. And with a knee-jerk reaction, how does he propose to accomplish this goal? Simply by raising taxes. That is right, a tax increase. A tax increase on energy. The ink is not even dry on the newly enacted tax cut package and the President is proposing a new tax, a green tax, that will place an unbearable burden on our most vulnerable citizens. And for what? The treaty exempts 132 of the 166 nations of this world. This places the entire burden of reducing greenhouse emissions on the industrialized nations. That is us. This will not eliminate greenhouse gases, it merely changes the point of origin, the point of production. By itself the Clinton-Gore-Browner Treaty will have a devastating effect on the American workers, but now the President wants to add insult to injury with his green tax. I ask the President to think hard about his ill-conceived green tax.