Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this time, Mr. Speaker. I rise to address an issue that I believe strikes at the integrity of this committee. It came to my attention just last week, and it has serious implications on what we have done regarding fair housing activities. Last week HUD announced the award of fiscal year 1997 funds under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, also known as FHIP. As we know, the FHIP provides support to private, nonprofit organizations to assist in enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. For fiscal year 1997, both the House and Senate committees specifically directed HUD to use FHIP funds only, only to address those forms of housing discrimination that are expressly proscribed by the Fair Housing Act. The report emphasized repeatedly that the Fair Housing Act makes no mention of the practices of property insurance. It further instructed that the FHIP funds not be allocated for purposes of enforcing the Act against insurers. HUD's announcement, in direct contradiction to this committee's intent, awarded numerous grants specifically for activities including investigating property insurance and otherwise seeking to enforce the Fair Housing Act against property insurers. In taking this action, HUD appears to have ignored completely this committee's directive. This is, in my judgment, a very serious matter that has implications beyond fiscal year 1997. The House in the legislation before us once again stated its intent that FHIP funds appropriated under this measure should not be used to address insurance practices. Mr. Speaker, for the past two fiscal years this committee, including myself and my good friend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, have worked together to craft report language to everyone's agreement. We did not do this to have it ignored by HUD. Report language is meant to be adhered to, and I intend to question HUD about their intent and apparent neglect of our wishes. The House Committee Report on the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations legislation stated: The Committee intends that funds appropriated to the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) for enforcement of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services, be used only to address such forms of discrimination as they are explicitly identified and specifically described in title VIII. Recognizing that there are limited resources available for FHIP activities, the Committee believes that FHIP funds should serve the purposes of Congress as reflected in the express language of title VIII. The Committee notes that HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has undertaken a variety of activities pertaining to property insurance under the authority of the Fair Housing Act. HUD recently testified that, due to Congressional concern about such activities, it does not intend to focus its regulatory initiatives on property insurance. The Committee is encouraged by this statement, but remains concerned about HUD's use of funds for other fair housing activities aimed at property insurance practices. HUD's insurance-related activities duplicate state regulation of insurance. Every state and the District of Columbia have laws and regulations addressing unfair discrimination in property insurance and are actively investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found to occur. HUD's activities in this area create an unwarranted and unnecessary layer of federal bureaucracy. The Fair Housing Act makes no mention of discrimination in property insurance. Moreover, neither it nor its legislative history suggests that Congress intended it to apply to the provision of property insurance. Indeed, Congress' intention, as expressly stated in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 and repeatedly reaffirmed thereafter, is that, unless a federal law ``specifically relates to the business of insurance,'' that law shall not apply where it would interfere with state insurance regulation. HUD's assertion of authority regarding property insurance contradicts this statutory mandate. This language, which was repeated almost verbatim in the Senate Committee report, makes extremely clear that no fiscal year 1997 funds appropriated for the FHIP were to be used to target the practices of insurance companies. On February 7, 1997, I wrote to HUD to seek confirmation that the Department's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO] would adhere to the directive expressed in the committee report. I specifically asked: ``Will the FHEO Office honor any requests for FHIP funding for activities relating to enforcement of the FHA against insurers?'' In a letter to me dated March 13, 1997, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations responded: ``All requests for funding under the fiscal year 1997 FHIP Notice of Funding Availability [NOFA] will be screened for proposed activities. The Department will not fund activities relating to enforcement of the FHAct against property insurers.'' The letter also provided confirmation of intended adherence by the Department to the Report directive by responding to other questions as follows: Question. Will the FHEO Office identify, in its public announcement of FHIP awards, whether any portion of those awards might be used for activities relating to applications of the FHA to insurance? Answer. Yes, the NOFA will state that activities relating to application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance will not be funded under any of the three Initiatives for which Congress has allocated funding in FY'97--i.e., Private Enforcement Initiative, Fair Housing Organization Initiative, or Education and Outreach Initiative. In addition, the application kit also will emphasize that such activities will not be funded, including as an ``in-kind'' contribution to the budget. Further, the Office of FHEO will place a special condition on all FY'97 awards regarding this restricted use of funds. Question. How will the FHEO Office monitor whether any portion of its FHIP awards are used for activities relating to application of the FHA to insurance? Answer. While the FHEO Office will make it clear that such activities will not be funded, the Office will monitor whether any portion of the FY'97 FHIP awards are used for activities relating to application of the FHA to insurance in several ways: (1) requiring submission of work products which would show the scope of planned activities, such as training outlines, conference agendas and materials, and testing methodologies; (2) a thorough review of reports submitted regarding actual activities under the grant, such as enforcement logs, quarterly progress reports and financial statements; and (3) on-site monitoring of grantees. Monitoring visits include interviews with grantee staff and testers, examination of financial and personnel records, review of testing and other enforcement records. Subsequently, in a letter to me dated May 13, 1997 the Assistant Secretary qualified the above quoted answer by stating that the Department would seek to ensure that FHIP fund are ``not used for narrowly focused enforcement purposes'' and that FHIP funded projects ``would not be focused upon a single issue, such as insurance discrimination.'' Then on September 30, 1997, HUD announced 67 awards of fiscal year 1997 grants under the FHIP. Out of the total of $15,000,000 in funds awarded, HUD announced that almost one third, an amount of $4,170,002, was awarded for activities including investigations, testing, and other enforcement-related projects specifically targeting insurance companies. This is in direct contradiction of the statements in HUD's March 13, 1997, letter to me. More importantly, it flatly contravenes the intent expressed by Congress in the House and Senate Committee Reports on HUD's fiscal year 1997 appropriations. Such a flagrant defiance of Congressional intent suggests the need for serious consideration about continued funding for the FHIP. I note that the House Committee Report on the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations legislation states: The Committee is encouraged by HUD's recent testimony and correspondence stating that the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity does not intend to use FHIP funds to solicit or fund applications that would address enforcement of the Fair Housing Act against property insurers. As the Committee has previously emphasized, given the limited resources available for enforcement of title VIII, it is appropriate that funds should serve the particular purposes expressly identified by Congress in the statute. The Committee appreciates HUD's acknowledgment of these budgetary priorities and looks forward to the agency's continued cooperation in adhering to them. In light of HUD's recent actions, there no longer appear to be grounds for believing that the Department will, in fact, act in ``continued cooperation and adhering to'' our budgetary priories. This is a very serious matter that I strongly feel should be addressed promptly, including, if necessary, through cutbacks in funding for the Department. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has done, I think, an extraordinary job, and I rise in strong support of this conference report. I could express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in many ways, but I think he has shepherded through not just an extraordinary bill but, frankly, something that I think is a credit to the gentleman, to the man, and it is not an easy job, as everybody knows, to perform this so-called miracle, if my colleagues will. I also want to express my thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. Mr. Fazio has again been also a strong contributor to bringing about some collegiality, some understanding, and it really has been a bipartisan effort. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the staff. They have all been monumentally resourceful about this whole thing in bringing about closure on some very, very difficult points that we have brought to closure in a way that I think benefits everybody. Mr. Speaker, I will have my statement, which is a longer version in support of H.R. 2203, included in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record. I rise in strong support of this conference report. I want to reexpress my appreciation to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their efforts and assistance with this bill. I also want to give a big thanks to the Energy and Water Subcommittee staff who were always ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill. H.R. 2203 includes several very important reforms that should have a dramatic impact on accelerating the environmental management cleanup of the Department of Energy and moving the Department forward after years of too little progress. Among the reforms are a funding mechanism to bring closure to the Rocky Flats site and the Ferndale site; transferring FUSRAP to the Corps of Engineers, who have been successfully completing similar low level cleanup programs for the Department of Defense; and stopping the flow of funding away from the mission-related work of the environmental management program to pay for separation benefits for workers who are displaced because of efficiency decisions of their employers. And, although not related to DOE, this bill contains another very important reform--the end of TVA appropriated funding after fiscal year 1998. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about our resolve on the Department's efforts to accelerate cleanup. We support the vision brought forth by the Department but we were very discouraged in June with the 10-year plan--Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 2006, Discussion Draft--that was brought forth. After a year of preparation, the result appeared to be nothing more than a top-level framework to begin the planning process. it was a document not supported by the details or by what could be realistically achieved. With this in mind, it is essential that DOE bring forth with next year's budget request, a detailed and defensible closure plan, based on aggressive but realistic estimates--that is, budget quality data--of the most that can be completed and closed out within the 10-year timeframe. I strongly believe that this vision can be accomplished by doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial mortgage and risk reduction, and by leveraging technology. As I've said many times before, it's time to get on with it. One provision I worked with the committee to have included in H.R. 2203 is bill and report language under the Worker and Community Transition Program authorized under section 3161 of the 1993 National Defense Authorization Act. This year's appropriation stops the flow of funding from mission accomplishment to fund worker separations that are due to business and efficiency decisions. I believe this will be a tremendous benefit to the environmental management program, who has been required to bear the cost of the more than $500 million spent thus far on these types of separations. This bill provides more than enough funds to protect this narrow class of workers, displaced from current defense missions of the Department, who are the often unrecognized heroes of the cold war. However, the enormous task of cleaning up the former nuclear defense facilities has been estimated to cost over $200 billion. Far too many dollars have been diverted away from the primary missions at these sites--to clean the environment. This bill protects those workers who may be displaced due to the end of the cold war, but it also protects the workers and nearby communities by keeping the cleanup dollars focused on cleanup. Since its inception, more than 37,000 workers at Department of Energy sites across the Nation have benefited from the worker transition program. In fact, since that time, Congress has spent over $650 million providing very generous severance packages to workers displaced from the former nuclear weapons production sites. Of this, it is estimated that at least $500 million have been taken from mission- related funds of the environmental management program to fund separation benefits to workers, all of whom are being displaced not because of a current change in defense mission but because of business and efficiency decisions of their employers. Further, an additional $168 million has been provided to communities surrounding former nuclear weapons production sites for economic development activities. It's been 6 years since we won the cold war and ceased nuclear weapons production. Most of these production sites have moved on to new missions and to cleaning up the legacy waste. Most of those who worked during the production era left these sites long ago or are protected under a seniority system of employment. This bill says that it is no longer reasonable or sustainable to provide extraordinary benefits, to those who do not meet the original intent of section 3161 of the 1993 Defense Authorization Act. The $61 million provided for worker and community transition is more than enough to fund all cold war warriors who still work for a current or former nuclear facility and who would like to voluntarily separate during the next fiscal year. Frankly, I believe it is time to move toward giving the contractors more autonomy--those companies who are cleaning up the environmental management sites should manage and right- size their own work force without Federal subsidies. Additionally, I would tell you that this program has been plagued by mismanagement and by questionable practices. The General Accounting Office has reported that individuals received extraordinary severance packages, in some cases in excess of $90,000 per person. Further, many of the workers receiving Federal assistance were hired in the years after the end of the cold war. Finally, the program has been criticized for providing benefits to terminate positions that were later refilled or rehired at added cost to the Government. As I said before, the Department of Energy has provided over $168 million in economic assistance to the local communities surrounding DOE defense nuclear sites. Not only do I believe that this is not a proper allocation of Federal dollars, but I believe that these dollars have not yielded the desired results. Take the Savannah River site in South Carolina as an example--3 years ago, the South Carolina Regional Diversification Initiative was set up as an economic development initiative to help offset layoffs at the former defense plant. According to newspaper report, only 34 jobs have been created with a Federal investment of $7 million. My understanding is that the majority of the money was spent on studies and administration. Not exactly the return on investment or track record that would justify additional Federal investmnent. However, very recently, when the local community leaders met with the Department of Energy, they were given another $4.6 million for this initiative. It is time to fund this program within it's authorized and appropriate levels--to provide help to the true cold war warriors--but stop diverting the money away from cleanup of the environmental management sites. This money should be used to accelerate cleanup and get this show on the road.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, last week my colleagues on the other side of the aisle held the House hostage in an attempt to score political points. In apparently a panic mode over the endless scandals from the 1996 Presidential election, they repeatedly forced procedural votes that delayed our work on the appropriation bills. They justify delaying the people's business as an attempt to force consideration of campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is an important issue, but it is also a complex issue. Before acting, we should first fully understand all that is involved with the current system. From the beginning of this year, scandal after scandal involving the Clinton White House, the Democratic National Committee, and their liberal political allies have dominated the headlines. Given this onslaught of negative press coverage, I understand why my Democratic colleagues would like to change the subject and create the appearance that they are good Government reformers. But I believe it is critically important for Congress to act in a deliberative fashion on this issue. It is not enough to say that the system stinks. We need to identify the people who make the system stink and hold them accountable for skirting the law. The money laundering schemes involving illegal foreign contributions are serious allegations, and they are allegations that need to be fully investigated before campaign finance legislation is considered. I am not saying that there is no need for reform. In fact, I have introduced a bill that would make Members of Congress more accountable to their constituents and less beholden to Washington special interests. But I believe the old saying, ``Do not place the cart in front of the horse.'' It applies to this situation. The American people have elected us to do their business in a deliberative and a thoughtful manner. They understand the way we finance elections is flawed, but they are not looking for knee-jerk solutions or reactions that may have the unintended consequence of making the system worse. At this point, we do not know enough about what went wrong in 1996 to offer a solution. Just consider, for example, the scandal involving the 1996 Teamsters presidential election. On September 18, three political consultants for Teamsters president Ron Carey pled guilty to criminal conspiracy charges related to a money laundering scheme that may involve the Democratic National Committee, Clinton campaign aides, and senior White House officials. For background purposes, a 1989 settlement between the Teamsters and the Justice Department over racketeering charges called for the Federal Government to finance and oversee the 1996 Teamsters presidential election. Ron Carey won the election by a narrow margin, but on August 22 a court-appointed Federal overseer threw out the election, the results, and called for a new election because of fundraising abuses. Mr. Speaker, under current law it is illegal for Teamsters funds to be spent on a candidate in a union election. The money laundering scheme that Carey's political aides pled guilty to involved using Teamsters funds to make political contributions to outside groups which then sent the money back to the Carey campaign, a clear violation of the law. A memo has emerged that indicates Teamster money may have been contributed to State and local Democratic parties in exchange for DNC officials funneling money into Carey's campaign. Senior Clinton advisers have been implicated in this scandal, and while we do not know the extent of their involvement at this time, the possibility of the President's men being involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude is certainly troubling. After all, the Clinton Justice Department was supposed to ensure that the Teamsters election was conducted in a fair and honest manner. To carry out this responsibility, Congress provided some $22 million. As a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am pleased that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] have scheduled hearings on this troubling matter, and I look forward to working with them to get to the bottom of this scandal. Mr. Speaker, we must reform our system to make political candidates more accountable to the people they represent and less beholden to the big money and interests that provide it, but we must first examine what is wrong with the system before we can offer a workable solution. After all, a doctor would not prescribe a patient or a treatment for a patient that he has not examined. By allowing the inquiries by the relevant congressional committees, the Justice Department, and, hopefully, a special counsel to move forward, we will gain a better understanding of what needs to be done to improve this system. The scandals from the Clinton reelection campaign have tainted the process by which Americans choose their leaders, and no matter how hard the President and his allies try to change the subject, this troubling fact must not be swept under the rug. As elected officials, we have an obligation to investigate the matter fully and hold those responsible for this sleazy money chase of 1996 accountable. Mr. Speaker, to do anything less would be scandalous in its own right.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, what a difference 4 years makes. In 1993 President Clinton and a Democrat Congress rammed through a budget that contained the largest tax increases in the history of this country and $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see. With a determination to save the American dream for the next generation, the Republican Congress turned the tax-and-spend culture of Washington upside down and produced a balanced budget with tax cuts for the American people. Now that the Federal Government's financial house is finally in order, the big question facing Congress, and the President, by the way, is what is next? With the average family still paying more in taxes than they do for the basic necessities, the obvious answer is, an across-the-board tax cut for everybody. As we move from the era of big budgets and budget deficits to budget surpluses, some in this town will argue that we can afford to spend more money on more Washington programs. This is the mindset that created the problem in the first place. For our children's sake, it should be rejected. I urge, Madam Speaker, to continue fighting for more tax relief for the American people.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, as the Kyoto negotiations on global warming draw near, millions of Americans' jobs are on the chopping block. The Clinton administration seems to be willing to sign on to an agreement that places the entire burden of reducing carbon emissions on the industrialized nations. In fact, the current language of the treaty exempts 132 of the world's 166 nations. Why is that troubling? Because the nations exempt from this U.N. treaty currently produce 50 percent, one-half, of carbon emissions and will account for 75 percent of such emissions over the next century. Therefore, this treaty would provide almost no benefit at all, but the economic impact on the United States would be devastating. Placing the entire burden on complying with this treaty on countries like the United States could turn the Third World into an enterprise zone and create a giant sucking sound of American jobs going overseas. Mr. Speaker, during the Kyoto negotiations, the Clinton administration must protect American workers, demand fairness, and reject any treaty that places the entire burden of reducing carbon emissions on the United States and on the other industrialized nations. Anything less would be like giving jobs away.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the gentlewoman who just spoke, it is enforcing the existing laws that really should be looked at, enforcing the laws in effect now. Mr. Speaker, while the recently enacted tax relief package represents a major step in the right direction, tax cutters cannot stop and rest on their laurels. Taxes are still too high, and many Americans, primarily single adults without children, will receive little or no relief from the recently enacted tax cuts. Therefore, it is imperative, I believe, that we provide the American people with more tax relief. In the next few days I will introduce a proposal that offers the next logical step in our efforts to increase the take-home pay of the American people. My proposal, the Taxpayer Relief and Protection Act, cuts marginal tax rates across the board by 5 percent, it eliminates the marriage penalty, and it moves the tax filing date from April 15 to November 1. This proposal benefits every American who earns a paycheck. It injects some fairness into the Tax Code, and makes it harder for Washington politicians to raise taxes in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. This amendment, as has been pointed out, will ostracize India at a very, very important time. Just as India is set and has, in fact, celebrated its 50th anniversary, this has been brought up as well, India is moving toward very important economic reforms. The United States relationship with India, the world's largest democracy, is growing stronger every day. It has been pointed out how the investment, U.S. investment, has grown. Just 6 years ago it was 500 million; today it is 5 billion. That is a tenfold increase. This makes India our largest overseas investor and trading partner. Of course, as has been pointed out as well, India is still a developing country. It does have problems, but it is working to resolve those problems. And for all of the shouting, there is no grave threat to India's steadfast commitment to diversity and tolerance. The Indian Government has taken crucial steps to end any abuse of human rights within its borders. It has established an independent human rights commission headed by a former justice of the Indian supreme court to investigate and to prevent human rights abuses. Last year it prosecuted some 200 violations. In fact, the most recent State Department human rights report praises India, praises India for the substantial progress the country has made in the area of human rights. Mr. Chairman, India contains within its borders a greater ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity than all of Europe from Ireland to Russia, and they have more people. Earlier this year, a government dominated by the Sikh minority replaced the ruling party, the ruling party in the state of Punjab. The elections were open and democratic, and over 65 percent of the electorate turned out to cast its vote. Further, around 80 percent of Indians are Hindus, but its presidents have included two Sikhs, one Muslim, and now a Dhalit. I would point out also that there are more Muslims living in India than there are in Pakistan. I firmly believe that this amendment on the eve of the celebration of Indian independence will have a devastating effect on the growing relationship between the two countries. Both the chairman and the gentleman from California have pointed that out. It will punish India for making significant efforts to correct its problems. It will bring to a screeching halt United States participation in one of the most important big emerging markets, but most importantly, it will lead us to shut ourselves out of involvement with the Indian Government and hinder our efforts to create a free and prosperous country. Let us accentuate the positive efforts that India has made. Let us work to eliminate the negative, just as India herself is doing. Let us support a valued friend, not shut the door on a growing relationship. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this damaging amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that America not be placed at a competitive disadvantage during the climate change negotiations in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997. The Clinton-Gore-Browner administration is notorious for pushing forward far-reaching environmental initiatives without adequately consulting the legislative branch or the scientific community. As you may remember, on September 19, 1996, President Clinton declared 1.7 million acres of Utah wilderness as a national monument without the endorsement of a single elected official from Utah, let alone any legislative action by the U.S. Congress. More recently, the Clinton administration announced radically expensive air quality standards for ozone and the fine particulate matter without any causal proof of their risk to health. Now it appears that the Clinton administration once again is trying to pull a political end-run. This December, it will represent the United States at an international meeting in Kyoto to discuss revisions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The essence of the meeting is to discuss new compliance mandates to limit and/or reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases. While the greenhouse effect as a concept has been generally accepted as scientific fact, there are widely varying estimates of humankind's impact on the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Therefore, it is impossible to judge what impact, if any, efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions will have on global warming. In keeping with this uncertainty, the United States signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, which called on all industrialized nations to adopt policies and programs to limit greenhouse gas emissions on a voluntary basis by the year 2000. In April 1995, the industrialized nations agreed to the Berlin Mandate, which set December 1997 as a target date to establish legally binding commitments from industrialized nations on the emission of greenhouse gas while exempting 129 developing nations, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, from its provisions. If taken to its logical conclusion, the Berlin Mandate would 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 would truly create a ``giant sucking sound'' of jobs leaving America to the Third World. It's not too late for the Clinton administration to alter its potentially disastrous policy course. My resolution would express the sense of the House that: 1. The administration will not sign any protocol or agreement to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless the protocol or agreement also mandates developing countries to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the same period. 2. The United States will not sign any protocol or agreement regarding global climate change that would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States. 3. Any protocol or agreement which must be sent to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification should: (a) Be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that would be required to implement the protocol or agreement; and (b) Be 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. Last week, the other body passed a nearly identical resolution on a vote of 95 to 0. The House should express its will as well, since we would have to consider and pass legislation to remain in compliance with any such treaty. As the Kyoto Conference draws near, thousands of American jobs are on the chopping block. Any over-reaching and/or inequitable effort to limit the level of CO2 emissions would be tantamount to pink slips to the American worker. We cannot allow this to happen. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, and I know others are too, to hear that an agreement has been reached between the Congress and the White House on the tax cut package. I am especially pleased when I recall the last time Congress and the White House reached an agreement on the tax package Republicans were definitely not celebrating. They were not celebrating because that tax package was the largest tax increase in the history of this country. So today marks a much different kind of agreement. And although I am pleased with the agreement on tax cuts, we should put this in perspective. Now, listen to this. The amount of net tax cuts over the next 5 years will be $91 billion. The amount of spending over the next 5 years will be $9 trillion. Nine trillion. Tax cuts $91 billion, spending $9 trillion. So I would just like to say that this tax cut package is only a first step toward deeper tax cuts, more money in the pockets of Americans, and we also want to have some fundamental tax reform. I cannot wait to get going on another tax cut package.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2159, the 1998 appropriations bill for foreign operations. As a member of this subcommittee, I want to commend my friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], who has been, I think, outstanding in his ability to work with all sides. Shepherding this bill is no different than any other, of course, but it is difficult when it is an appropriations bill and he has done it, I think, with grace, with diligence and with impartiality. I want to thank also the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for her work with the chairman and the committee. The entire subcommittee staff should also be thanked for all the work that they have done to bring about this bill. Each member of the subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan way to craft this bill so that it reflects the Nation's international priorities while maintaining a goal of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. The bill again holds the line on foreign aid spending. At the same time, the bill maintains funding for our most important foreign aid priorities. I want to especially thank the chairman for working with myself and others to include increased funding for the microenterprise program. This helpful program provides small loans to the poorest individuals of the less developed countries in an effort to create self-reliance. That program has been very successful. I applaud the bill's continued commitment to the Middle East peace process. In addition to maintaining the funding levels at the same level for both Egypt and Israel, the bill requires now a detailed report of the progress toward compliance with the Oslo peace accords. The bill contains our strong commitment to democracy building in Russia while addressing our concerns about Russian exports of nuclear and ballistic missile technology. With Russia and the United States already at odds over the Russian sale of nuclear reactors to Iran, Russia now plans to aid Cuba in revitalizing a dangerous Chernobyl style nuclear reactor just 90 miles off our coast. This must not be allowed to happen. This grave situation is addressed in the bill by stipulating that aid to Russia is contingent upon stopping the development of any nuclear program or ballistic missile capacity. We are sending a powerful signal to Russia that its interaction with dangerous rogue states like Iran is unacceptable. Finally, I want to highlight the provisions of this bill that deal with the ongoing conflict in the Caucasus. Many people do not even know about the history of this small troubled region of the former Soviet Union. But this conflict will continue to have an impact upon America, on our interests because of the neighboring countries that surround that community. I am glad and proud to have worked with the chairman and with members of this subcommittee to craft what I consider a productive, positive proposal that will facilitate peace in the region and reinforce the U.S. role as an unbiased mediator in the peace process. Whether you know it or not, each of us has a vested interest in the outcome of the Caucasus. U.S. interest can best be served through a swift and meaningful resolution to conflicts plaguing this troubled region. This proposal also removes obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian relief to needy people throughout the Caucasus. It clarifies section 907 of the Freedom Support Act and allows democracy building and electoral reform activities in Azerbaijan. Section 907 should not preclude programs designed to create a more democratic Azerbaijan because democratic nations are inherently more peaceful. The bill contains the $95 million package of assistance to Armenia meeting the pressing humanitarian and development needs there and hopefully hasten its progress toward stability, peace and prosperity. With our support we may finally see this region free of bloodshed and conflict and rich with prosperity and opportunity. The subject of foreign aid often sparks heated debate on the floor. We all have strong opinions about of course how we feel about things and about a number of programs that are close to us. I asked my colleagues not to let these heated discussions keep us away from coming to closure to resolution on the business at hand which is to pass this bill, a fair bill. We need them to unite behind it. I want to again thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for all of his work and his leadership in bringing the influence, his influence into this to bring about, I believe, a very, very outstanding bill. I ask Members to support the bill and I want to in closing thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their efforts and assistance with this bill. I also want to give a big thanks to the entire Energy and Water Subcommittee Staff who were always ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill. This is a good bill. This bill provides adequate funding for continued construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Furthermore, it still provides $85 million to begin construction of an interim storage facility once we enact authorization for such a facility later this year. This will help the Department of Energy meet its contract obligations to the commercial nuclear industry. This bill also provides $7 million for the university nuclear reactor programs, $5 million of which is designated for the nuclear engineering R&D. This will ensure that we have the next generation of engineers prepared to develop and oversee our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. Although this bill does not fund the administration's request for the Nuclear Energy Security Program, I believe that nuclear power is an essential part of the Nation's energy portfolio and as such, I support some level of nuclear energy R&D for energy security. Considering nuclear power supplies over 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, we need to ensure the existing supply as a component of the Nation's baseload well into the next century. I encourage the Department to re- scope this year's proposal and to propose research that only takes advantage of DOE's unique capabilities but provides the best possible return on investment. The bottom line is that as our primary in nuclear R&D declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations. When we began the appropriations process this year, I was cautiously optimistic that the Department of Energy was turning the corner on its environmental management program--that a new vision had been embraced over at the Department--a vision of accelerating and completing the cleanup of DOE's defense nuclear sites so that as many of them as possible are closed down within the next decade. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that it's been more than a year since DOE brought forth this new vision and still, the Department has not been able to deliver a credible, defensible plan. As the old saying goes, ``the Devil's in the Details.'' DOE's ``Discussion Draft'' was finally released in June and is little other than a top-level framework to start the planning process. It is a document that is not supported by DOE's own site data or by what is realistically achievable. I still believe that this vision is well within our grasp and this bill get us much closer to it. Frustrated with years of mismanagement in clearning up the former nuclear defense sites, this bill directs the Department of Energy to cleanup and close out the two major environmental management sites. Specifically, the Closure Project accelerates the closure of the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites. These are the two sites where all the entities--the administration, the States, the contractors, and the citizens--agree that closure by 2006 can and should be done. We've added funding above the administration's request to ensure just that-- so that cleanup by 2006 becomes a reality. I'm also glad the bill preserves funding for other closure projects, a proposal that I championed last year. I hope that the Department follows this lead and creates more closure projects in the future. Mr. Chairman, I also support transferring funding for cleanup of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. As you know, this is a program for cleanup of 46 former Manhattan District or Atomic Energy Commission sites--a program that's been underway for 17 years and is still only 50 percent complete. I think it's time to try something different--and I believe the Corps, who successfully manages Department of Defense cleanups will be able to bring these projects to closure more quickly and at a more reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We need to remain vigilant about new and innovative ways to accelerate cleanup. In this context, I support privatization. However, I want greater assurances of the Department's ability to manage privatized cleanups and less dependence on large sums of up-front federal funding, even when it's held in reserve. I also support efforts to leverage technology and encourage the Department to better utilize the best and brightest of the universities and national laboratories. For example, DOE's use of the leading universities in the area of robotics technology development and deployment is a success story within the technology development program. Using advanced state-of-the-art robotics for a broad spectrum of cleanup tasks is not just efficient and more effective than using humans, but it reduces occupational exposure to hazardous environments. Finally, I want to see DOE bring forth, along with next year's budget request, a detailed and defensible closure plan based on an aggressive but realistic estimate of the most that can be completed and closed out over the next decade. I agree that the vision can be accomplished by doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial mortgage and risk reduction, and by leveraging technology. But let's get on with it. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership and for the efforts of the staff.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As some of my colleagues have said, it has come up before, it has been soundly defeated, but it seems, like a bad penny, to keep coming back. Mr. Chairman, I support the chairman's mark for $20 million. The chairman, by the way, who along with the ranking member worked very hard to craft a bill that I think is a bill of substance. This $20 million for the electrometallurgical processing I think is vital. It is vital R&D, and it is a program that hopefully will enable the Department of Energy to treat its own, I am saying its own spent nuclear fuel and convert it to a form that is safe for final disposal. It is important, I think, to understand that a portion of DOE's spent fuel is chemically reactive and it cannot, and I repeat, it cannot be disposed of in its present form. In fact it is my understanding that some of this fuel is pyrophoric. I am not a chemist, but I do know what it means and I have been told by a number of experts that it will spontaneously ignite when exposed to air. Mr. Chairman, this is not a program directed at research for the commercial nuclear industry. It is not corporate welfare. Nothing of the kind. The commercial industry does not need, does not even need this technology. But who does? DOE does and America needs it. Nor is it an R&D effort that will result in technology to separate out the plutonium from the spent fuel. The plutonium remains suspended in the spent fuel. There are no valid proliferation issues associated with this technology. Rather, it is an R&D program that will render DOE's own inventory of spent fuel safe, while at the same time substantially reducing the volume of waste and the cost of characterization, handling, storage and ultimately, of course, disposal. Mr. Chairman, this program is in its last year of funding. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment so that can be completed as requested by the department, and as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. Chairman, I believe, as has been done historically, this has been passed on a bipartisan basis two, three, four years going back. I think we should do it again, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Bonior. The administration continues to crunch numbers, trying to make most Americans rich; Americans, by the way, that are struggling, who are not rich. I believe, finally, there is a balance here in this body that wants to give a tax cut to those people that deserve it. There are those on the other side of the aisle who complain about the tax cut, and I think they are really showing their true colors. They do not really care about struggling families, they do not want a tax cut anyway. What they want is to increase our taxes, they want the Government to have more of our money. So if my colleagues really want a tax cut, just admit it and do all the working people in this country a favor: Tell them they do not know what is best for their family, tell them they need to pay more taxes, tell them they would rather take more money out of their pocket, tell them they should give more to the IRS. But please tell them the truth about tax relief.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, guess what? My colleagues have heard this before, but if someone makes $54,000, they are now the rich. They just do not know it yet. Or at least that is what the Clinton administration has figured with their calculations on who should get a tax cut. With the stroke of a calculator they have created funny money. They have moved millions of Americans from the middle class to Beverly Hills, from Main Street to Rodeo Drive, from the minivan to the limo. This new wealth in America includes a lot of people. Who are they? Some 1.7 million union members are rich; 8.1 million government workers are rolling in dough; 2.4 million teachers better crack the champagne and call Robin Leach. They are all rich according to the President and they just do not need a tax cut. We should get serious. We have not had a tax cut in more than 16 years, and now we have a real chance to provide relief to our families. It is time for the left to stop twisting the truth about tax relief.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill which makes the transportation appropriations for fiscal year 1998. It is not easy balancing funds for trains, for planes, for automobiles, for bridges, for asphalt and all the rest that goes into it, but the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] I think has perfected this as an art form. One area that I would like to bring to the attention of this body is in transit, specifically buses and bus facilities. For the past two appropriation cycles the Michigan delegation came to the subcommittee somewhat fragmented in their request, each, of course, wanting the largest funding they could possibly get. That is not surprising. The approach, though, became more troublesome. During this present cycle the delegation changed its course and decided to unify behind a single funding level. As the sole member of the Michigan delegation on the Committee on Appropriations I was glad, of course, to do my part, but it took a lot of effort, of course, from the chairman and members of the committee. We were able to receive commitments from the Michigan Department of Transportation and each of our members in the delegation that this approach was best. I want to commend each member of our delegation for their willingness to try this approach. I would hope we continue this in the years to come. It certainly was easier. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Members again for their leadership and their extraordinary effort on this. I would also like to extend a huge thank you and a salute to John Blazey on the staff, who worked with my staff to bring this to a closure, and I think it all came to a good end. With that in mind, I want to thank the gentleman again.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Barcia, and, obviously, my other colleagues from Michigan Mr. Stupak, and Ms. Stabenow, now that, as a member of the Michigan delegation, I share their concern for the funding equity in the upcoming reauthorization of our Nation's transportation program. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I also want to assure them that nothing in this bill will prevent the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure from addressing the issue of funding equity within the reauthorization, and I thank the gentleman for inquiring.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. I appreciate his comments.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the bill. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], who has done an outstanding job along with, of course, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member. I think the two of them forged a relationship that brings about some bipartisanship that frankly we need in this body, and I applaud both of them for that. As we began this appropriations process this year, the biggest unanswered question was whether we could fashion a good bill acceptable to a bipartisan majority. I would say that this subcommittee has done just that in a definitive fashion. This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of diverse agencies ranging from AmeriCorps, to the environment, to space exploration. It is not easy to bring such a wide range of interests together into a single bill. In fact, it is one of the most difficult legislative juggling acts that my colleagues will ever encounter in this body, and again the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], deserve a lot of credit. I believe that H.R. 2158 strikes a unique balance that addresses the needs of our veterans' housing programs, the environment and special needs of space exploration. Veterans funding is increased by more than 330 million, sending, I believe, a clear message of continued support for those who risk their lives for our country. We preserved funding for NASA's core mission, and in light of the recent success of Sojourner's mission to Mars, I think we should applaud what has been done and exciting to see some of the results of that spending. While we increased EPA funding to protect our environment, I have some grave concerns over EPA's use of these funds to implement the proposed new clean air standards. Much of the debate surrounding this issue has become emotional, polarizing, rather than constructive and innovative. Without question, I believe the administration is attempting to impose costly new regulations on our communities, workers, businesses and families without anything more than a shred of concrete evidence that the new standards will help. A part of me would really like to see this bill separated in the fashion so we could look at it, analyze it and apply some cost-benefit analysis and some risk analysis to this whole process. I do not believe that is the case. But in conclusion, the bill before us is a good bill. I am very sure, very sure that every Member in this body could find something wrong with it, and probably has, but on the basis of what has been presented I believe it is a good bill and, frankly, if they can find something wrong with it, that is the nature of the process down here on the floor. We can all find something wrong with whatever comes through in the way of a product. But I again want to take a moment to applaud the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the staff who have done an outstanding job, again the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and I particularly wanted to thank Mr. Stokes for his working with me on an issue that in times passed has been a bit of a hangup, but it has come about, I think, where we have reached a conclusion that we have agreed that we can agree on this issue.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this time to, if I could, participate in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] if that would be in order. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding, at least in my mind, the funding level for the automotive fuel cell research and development program within the Energy Conservation Program. First, I want to clarify the funding level for the advanced automotive technology program. It is my understanding that the committee recommended more money for the advanced automotive technology program this year than was appropriated in the years 1996 and 1997.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for that. Although the total amount for the advance automotive technology program received an increased recommendation from the committee over the past 2 years, I have heard from the Department of Energy that the fuel cell program has received a significant reduction in funding, perhaps as much as $10 million.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It is further my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Energy approved grants within the fuel cell program and that these grants have had an impact on the market value of the companies that have been designated as grantees. A part of my confusion is how these grants could have been approved by the DOE, the Department of Energy, if the funding for these grants were dependent on future appropriations. I also am not clear whether the grant recipients can receive a portion of their grant even when the amount appropriated is not enough to fund all the department's approved grants. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is some good research being conducted within this program, including some research in my home State of Michigan, but the gentleman can see there still appears to me a lot of confusion surrounding the issue. I am asking the gentleman today to work with me to clarify some of this confusion surrounding the funding level for the automotive fuel cell program.