Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I recognize the time and the effort and extraordinary commitment that the gentleman from Colorado has, but I would just say to him that there is a lot of talk in this body about cuts for solar and renewable energy programs. I know that there are a lot of Members that are fascinated with the whole idea of renewables. I happen to be to some extent, too, in fact, to a great extent. But we also know during the next few years, next few decades that we expect the depletion of our supplies of fossil fuels. But that time has not come. And at some point we will have to be prepared for that, but it is not here yet. I think it is critically important that my colleagues understand that all Federal programs designed to further the cause of solar and renewable energy are not created equal. We have basic research programs that are designed to remove the technological barriers to cheap plentiful sources of renewable energy. It seems to me that the widespread use of solar and renewable technologies will not make economic sense, some say, for another 40 to 60 years. If that is the case, we should devote most of our research developing new technologies rather than pumping up current technologies that have not proven economically competitive. This amendment moves in the opposite direction. In fact, I would say also that this amendment does nothing, absolutely nothing to change the law on its face. The amendment is dependent upon the legislative intent we expressed here in this debate. I believe we should take the 9.6 million that was saved in the Roemer amendment to reduce the DOE's field management account and the 20.6 million that was saved with the Kolbe amendment to reduce the Central Arizona Project, I believe this money, both of these moneys should go to deficit reduction. We can still do that. However, if we are so inclined to take this savings that the American taxpayers have enjoyed for less than an hour and a half, maybe, how long has it been, and just turn around, I think we ought to take the savings and put it somewhere into research and development and energy supply. I will just tell Members that the solar and renewable accounts are already overflowing with cash. Listen to this, these are unspent balances and the proponents of the Schaefer amendment want to increase funding for programs that have huge unspent balances: solar building technology research, 3.3 million; that is 163 percent of last year's appropriation. Electric energy systems, 42.8 million; that is 141 percent of last year's appropriation. Here is one, wind energy systems, 55.6 million; that is 171 percent of last year's appropriation, and solar technology transfer, 24.3 million; that is 566 percent of last year's appropriation. What does this all mean? It means that some of these accounts could go on for five years at the current level of funding and longer without needing another dime. I think it is time that we look at precisely the situation that we are doing here. We are trying to subsidize a program that frankly has not reached viability commercially. It truly has not. I have got a project in my home state of Michigan where they have subsidized, the individual subsidies make it work, but that comes out of their pocket. It does not cost DOE a penny. I am suggesting that in this time of limited fiscal resources, basic research, not corporate welfare, is what we need now. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Schaefer amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I support this rule. It is an open rule which will allow an open debate on the issues involved in the energy and water development appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. This is the 13th of 13 appropriations bills. And I salute Chairman Solomon and the Rules Committee for providing open rules. This demonstrates the hard work and commitment by Chairman Solomon and the Rules Committee to an open and fair discussion of all Members' concerns throughout the appropriations process. Being Members of Congress from 435 congressional districts, 50 States, and from diverse regions throughout America, we bring a different story, a different understanding, a different set of priorities to this floor of U.S. House of Representatives. And with our diverse backgrounds we will not agree on everything. We enter this debate, sometimes a rigorous debate, on the what the spending priorities will be for the Federal Government for fiscal year 1997. But under this open rule we can air our ideas, discuss our concerns, and persuade others through debate. One of the issues that I am particularly concerned about within the Department of Energy is the issuance of buyouts for DOE and contractor employees. As the cold war came to a close during the fall of 1991, we left behind a legacy of nuclear waste from the weapons manufacturing sites. As we made a transition from production to clean up the Department of Energy ramped up their employee numbers at the nuclear cleanup sites to, in many cases, twice their previous staffing levels. Sites like Handford, WA, saw staffing increases from approximately 11,500 level in the late 1980's to almost 17,000 in 1994. The Rocky Flats site in Colorado saw increases from about 5,000 employees in 1998 to numbers over 7,500 in 1991. And at the Savannah River site in South Carolina, employee numbers were almost doubled from around 10,600 in 1988 up to almost 21,000 in 1992. These increases occurred even though production of nuclear weapons at these sites ceased by September 1991. Now I will be the first to point out that these employee numbers have since been brought down to full production levels in the past few years. But I am still concerned with the Department's staffing plans to facilitate further down sizing. One of the mechanisms that the Department uses to minimize social and economic impacts caused by the layoffs of cold war warriors is section 3161 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993. Employee severances packages provided for under section 3161 include cash buyouts, job training, health care coverage, and relocation costs coverage. I support these benefits for the cold war warriors who for decades were quintessential to maintaining our Nation's security through nuclear deterrence. However, I am very concerned about how these benefits have been distributed freely to noncold war warriors. I would like to relay to you an experience I had during my visit to Rocky Flats in early June. During a briefing on work force restructuring, I asked the contractor's vice president of human relations a hypothetical question. I asked: ``If I had worked at Rocky Flats for 5 years, what separation benefits would I receive if I voluntarily left today?'' I was told I would receive a benefits package that would include: First, a cash buyout based on percentage of salary and years employed. Second, 3 years of health benefits: year 1--full coverage; year 2-- partial coverage; and year 3--eligible for COBRA. Third, relocation expenses. Fourth, training expenses. The contractor vice president went on to say, that even if I had only been employed for 1 year, I would be entitled to this severance package. The buyouts include severance packages totalling over $25,000 per separated employee. Buyouts for those recently employed are not exclusive to Rocky Flats by any means. In fact, I have strong concerns that such buyouts are common at all sites EM wide. When placed under close scrutiny by the inspector general's office, buyouts at the Fernald Environmental Management project in Ohio were found to be handled with reckless disregard for the American taxpayer. In 1994, the Fernald nuclear cleanup site was instructed to reduce the work force involved in doing remedial investigations and feasibility studies and instead to focus the work force on actual cleanup. This shift in skills mix was to occur simultaneously with a work force reduction of 660 employees--a 36-percent reduction--over 3 years. An April 1996 inspector general report on work force restructuring at the Fernald site, found that in many cases staffing buyouts were followed by the rehiring of employees with essentially the same skill mix. This resulted in no significant reductions in the bloated work force and it did not save any money. One example of such careless management at the Fernald site is where 14 secretaries were voluntarily separated during the 1994 restructuring, all receiving lucrative severance packages. But then 19 new secretaries were hired back during the same fiscal year. The IG report continues that ``[i]n the [1995] restructuring, [Fernald] identified 47 secretaries for separation, 3 of whom were hired after the first restructuring.'' Since the announcement of the 1995 restructuring, Fernald has hired an additional 19 secretaries. This ramping up, buying down, ramping up, buying down is absolutely ridiculous and can't be allowed to continue. In the report that accompanies this bill, the committee has addressed these waste and inefficiencies that plague the worker transition program. This report notifies the Department of Energy of the committee's concerns about generous separation and severance benefits being offered to non-cold war warriors. Mr. Speaker, everyone should know that while the subcommittee is not unilaterally opposed to buyouts, they should be used sparingly, judiciously, and as part of an overall work force restructuring plan. I would say to my colleagues that the subcommittee is committed to getting to the bottom of this and this bill lays the ground work for some much-needed reforms in the years to come. I support this open rule that will allow for further open debate on the important issues concerning energy and water appropriations.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time, and I appreciate all the work he has done, particularly on this bill, but also the staff, my staff and the committee's staff. They worked hard and have done an outstanding job. There are several things I want to talk about, but to be very brief about this, I want to focus on the fact that in this appropriations bill, like any other appropriations bill, we did not simply spread the pain evenly among the programs in our jurisdiction. Instead, we prioritized spending program by program based on their efficiency and national importance. I would just tell my colleagues that I am encouraged by the committee's foresight to fund the basic research and development programs at the budget request level. Furthermore, the committee has reduced funding for those programs that simply give subsidies to corporations for product development. We have all heard of corporate welfare, and it seems to be in defiance of a free and open market. The market is the best indicator, of course, of the value of a product. Programs such as the international solar energy program and the renewable energy production incentive program are an example, I believe, of the Federal Government defying the market by holding otherwise noncompetitive corporations afloat with Federal subsidies. I want to talk about important item which, frankly, is a concern I think of everybody. It is the environmental waste end of things where we spend something over $6 billion. If we look at the BEMR report, which was produced to give us an example of when this would come to an end, they are talking about the end of the next century. That is simply not acceptable. I am glad to see we have report language now that will give us a program to get on track and it expresses the committee's strong views, and also, I believe, DOE's, in terms of bringing to closure these sites around the country. In the report language for fiscal year 1998, the bill, and I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Myers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bevill, and all the committee for their work on this, we have in place a project closure fund. It means simply this. The committee then directs the Department of Energy to include in its budget request to Congress an account designated as the project closure fund. As the report indicates, the purpose of a closure project is within a fixed period of time to clean up and decommission a former defense nuclear facility, or portion thereof, and to make the facility safe by stabilizing, consolidating, and removing special nuclear materials from the facility. The site contractor must demonstrate and validate several criteria, including a project completion date, within 10 years of application. That is a lot shorter than the end of the next century. The amount of funding to be set aside for the project closure fund is 10 percent of the total defense EM Program. This funding would be available to site contractors who meet the criteria on a competitive basis. The project closure fund is the type of program that can save the EM from becoming a century long spending fiasco. What we need and what the project closure fund provides is a responsible, manageable cleanup program to bring closure to the EM Program and free up the Department of Energy's largest fiscal expenditure for budget deficit reduction. Closure of these former defense nuclear cleanup sites is mandatory if we are to achieve our highest goal, which is ensuring safety for the communities and the workers in close proximity to the sites. It also sends a message, I believe, to the Department of Energy and the site contractors that the time is now to close down the EM Program. We owe it to our Nation to come up with a better plan. Again, I sincerely want to thank Chairman Myers, Ranking Member Bevill, and all the crew, all the gang here that worked so hard to include the project closure fund in the report language. I am encouraged by this language, and I am glad to see we are turning the corner.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, just this week, and in connection with what the previous speaker was talking about, where are we on this whole thing, where really is the President on all of this? He changed his mind about welfare again. He said in a speech to the Nation's Governors just 2 days ago that he is going to sign welfare reform. He also said he is committed to supporting Wisconsin's welfare reform plan. I can hear the White House spinmeisters now spinning their wheels and saying, ``how do we explain this to the public?'' Who knows where the President is? Maybe he will sign the very same welfare reform he has vetoed twice. Perhaps he will okay Wisconsin's welfare waiver. Who knows? My Democrat friends in the Congress have said if you do not like where the President stands, just wait a while. Enough of the doubletalk, I would say. Enough of the flips. It is time the President lived up to the 1992 promise to change welfare as we know it. Our current welfare system has failed miserably over the last 30 years. It is time to get under the hood and fix the problem.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a special person--Alex Manoogian--who passed away last week. America has not only lost a kind benefactor and gentle heart, it has lost a talented inventor and a perfect model of the American dream. A penniless Armenian immigrant who came to America in 1924, Manoogian was a business leader from the start. He founded the Masco Corp. in 1926 producing parts for the auto industry. In the 1950's, Manoogian revolutionized the plumbing fixture industry with his innovations-- particularly the renowned Delta faucet. While his wealth exploded with each success, Manoogian never forgot the less fortunate and his Armenian people. Manoogian donated more than $90 million to charity and education in his lifetime. His enduring gift to Detroit is the Manoogian mansion, the official mayoral residence, which he donated to the city in 1966. He was a father figure to metro Detroit's 40,000-strong Armenian- American community and has served as an example to Armenians throughout the world. He served as international president of the Armenian General Benevolent Union for 36 years. For his hard work, leadership, and generosity, the Armenian Government recently awarded Manoogian its National Hero Medal. His name has been bestowed on numerous buildings at local universities and his endowments have helped create an Armenian studies program at the University of Michigan. He also has a senior citizen home named for him in my district in Livonia. It was an honor to know such a great man. He was a generous man with a kind heart. He was truly an example of the American dream. He fled chaos and tyranny in post-World War I Turkey, immigrated to America, and pursued his dream. He succeeded and never forgot his heritage. Alex Manoogian was a good friend to all he knew and those he didn't know, but could help. He will be missed but his legacy and spirit will remain ingrained in our souls forever.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, every hard working American family stands to benefit from the policies the Republican Congress is moving forward. Despite the outrageous scare tactics and the ``sky is falling'' strategy of the Democrats, the future will be better for our children and our grandchildren. We have successfully aimed to cut wasteful spending, reduce duplication, and lower taxes to get the Government out of our workers checkbooks. And with a balanced budget, lower interest rates will mean lower mortgages, lower car payments, and more affordable student loans. We have pushed for welfare reform that rewards hard work and perseverance and returns the expectation of personal responsibility. The Democrats and President Clinton have only blown hot air at welfare reform while still pushing the same old spend-spend-spend welfare state. Republicans have promoted workplace safety protections and pushed for better designed programs to help students go to college. And if you really want to help working families, we'll cut their taxes and let them keep more of their hard-earned money rather than give them 90 cents an hour. We've made solid progress to cut spending, balance the budget, and make this Government work better. This bill is an important part of the fight. So reject the deception and the distortions. Support the rule. It is a good rule. It is an open rule and support this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 182. MFN status is not a concession and does not mean that China is getting preferable trade treatment--there really is no most favored in MFN. MFN means China and the United States grant each other the same tariff treatment that they provide to other countries with MFN status-- which is everyone except a few rogue states such as North Korea. Revocation of MFN would be a lose-lose situation for the American people. It would cause substantial harm to the U.S. economy. Trade with China has provided American businesses with a tremendous economic growth opportunity. And as we have seen in other areas of the world, trade restrictions are successful in changing behavior only when they are universally observed. Unilateral action won't work. China will have little reason to change since Beijing can simply take its business elsewhere. I ask you to vote against House Joint Resolution 182. Only by fostering economic prosperity can we hope to see the changes in China that we all want. Vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 182.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. I also thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for yielding, and I want to begin by commending the gentleman from California for all of his hard work. Shepherding an appropriations bill through this legislative process is not easy, and yet he has done it with diligence and impartiality. I would also like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and his subcommittee staff for all the extraordinary work that they have done on behalf of getting this bill on the floor. Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD bill is by its very nature a difficult piece of legislation to move. It is the catchall bill that contains many diverse and competing priorities within its jurisdiction. Its provisions lend themselves more to rumbling acceptance than to enthusiastic support. Some Members will think this bill spends too much, others too little. But I believe that this bill is right on target and was forged in a bipartisan fashion. The bill reflects fiscal realities, but it also leaves room for necessary expansion. In discretionary spending the bill provides $64.4 billion in budget authority and $78.8 billion in outlays. Those who would succumb to complaining about what is not in the bill should think about what is in the bill. For the most part, the bill fully funds the President's request in the areas of health, housing, and education. In fact, roughly $38.8 billion will go to the Department of Veterans Affairs. We can all agree that taking care of our Nation's veterans and their dependents should be our No. 1 priority, and this budget demonstrates our commitment to this end. During the process of forging the bill, housing has prompted a great deal of heated debate. But I believe that the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], again has done his level best to resolve this matter within the ever present fiscal constraints that face the entire subcommittee and Congress as a whole. While we all have strong opinions about a number of programs, let us not let a heated discussion about this or that program keep us from the business at hand. Instead, let us all agree to maintain the civility that has marked the shaping of this bill, and vote on a good and fair bill.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I again thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, by its terms the McCarran-Ferguson Act renders any Federal statute inapplicable to the activities of insurance companies, if, one, the Federal statute does not specifically relate to insurance; two, the challenged activity constitutes the business of insurance; and, three, the Federal statute would invalidate, impair or supersede State insurance law. An examination of these factors suggests that the application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance practices is barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. As I previously stated, the Fair Housing Act makes no mention of property insurance. Secondly, the pricing, underwriting and marketing of property insurance policies clearly constitutes the business of insurance.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, while the legislative history is quite clear, the situation in the courts is less so. Recently, two circuit courts reached the conclusion that the Fair Housing Act applies to the business of insurance. Those courts strictly followed the doctrine of judicial deference to agency decisionmaking. They apparently felt constrained by the fact that HUD, the agency that was charged with implementing the Fair Housing Act, had declared that the law should be applied to insurance. Rather than contradict HUD, the courts determined that they should follow HUD's rule at least until Congress expressly makes clear that HUD's interpretation is wrong. Before HUD issued its 1989 rule stating that the Fair Housing Act applies to insurance, the prevailing view in the Federal circuit courts was that the act does not apply to insurance. It was only after HUD's rule was promulgated that the courts decided otherwise. HUD, therefore, was essentially responsible for triggering the court decisions finding that the Fair Housing Act applies to insurance. Am I correct again, Mr. Chairman, in assuming that the gentleman agrees that the courts have sent mixed signals on this issue?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the courts have held that a Federal statute will be deemed to invalidate, impair, or supersede State law whenever the State has regulated the same general subject within the business of insurance. Currently, all States specifically forbid unfair discrimination in the issuance or termination of property insurance. Thus, it appears that HUD's activities pursuant to the Fair Housing Act constitute a dual Federal-State system of regulating insurance discrimination, contrary to the letter and spirit of the McCarran- Ferguson act. Does the gentleman again concur that HUD's application of the Fair Housing Act to insurance is fundamentally at odds with McCarran- Ferguson?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for engaging me in this colloquy.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to clarify the committee report language regarding HUD's application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance and to engage the distinguished chairman, if I might, in a colloquy. First, I think it is important to emphasize that nothing in the committee report either states or suggests that Congress is not fully committed to the eradication of unlawful discrimination in whatever form it may appear. In particular, the report does not suggest that there should be any tolerance of unfair discrimination in insurance. Rather, it specifically emphasizes the importance of the laws and regulations prohibiting unfair insurance discrimination that are maintained by every State and the District of Columbia. The issue dealt with in the report is not whether unfair discrimination by insurers be prosecuted and punished but, rather, who should undertake such prosecution: HUD or the insurance commissioners of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. As I am sure the gentleman is aware, the Fair Housing Act does not, by its very terms, apply to property insurance. The statute expressly prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. It also specifically prohibits discrimination in mortgage lending and the services that mortgage brokers provide. It does not, however, mention property insurance at all. There is ample indication in the legislative history of this statute that Congress was intentional in omitting any such reference. First, when the Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1968, it was expressly the view of this House floor that property insurance was excluded from its scope. Second, in the same legislative session, Congress specifically addressed the issue of property insurance availability through a separate law, the Urban Property Protection and Reinsurance Act, choosing that measure, rather than the Fair Housing Act, as the appropriate way to deal with the issue. Third, while there have been several attempts since 1968 to include property insurance under the umbrella of the Fair Housing Act, each of them failed at some stage of the legislative process. Finally, last year the House voted 266-157 against funding HUD activities involving the application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance. Am I correct in assuming the gentleman agrees that the legislative history of this issue suggests Congress never intended the Fair Housing Act apply to the business of insurance?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a special person who has taken on a special task. Livonia native Vikki Kowaleski, publisher of Caregiver Monthly, and her husband John have dedicated themselves to people who need help. After a personal experience with the everyday rigors of caregiving in which their ideas were innovative and praised, Vikki and John decided to share their experience. They developed Caregiver Monthly, a nationwide, Livonia-based newsletter, which is published to encourage, support, assist, inform, and exhort caregivers throughout the world. Celebrating the first anniversary of their initial publication this month, this first year has been a tremendous success. Dedicated to helping those who--out of need or even the goodness of their hearts--care for relatives, the elderly, or those unable to care for themselves, Caregiver Monthly focuses on helpful hints and information on many things like nutrition, long-term care, and other important health and personal tips. Often promoting ways to make caregiving easier, Caregiver Monthly is a very important reading for our dedicated individuals who care for those who need help the most. Congratulations, Vikki and John, and keep up the great work. Caregiver Monthly is headed in the right direction. Your commitment to caregiving, as well as our outstanding dedication are tribute to your success. It is also an important part of making our community and country a better place.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, employees have a right to know why their hard-earned money is being taken out of their pockets and being used by union leaders. They also deserve the right to stop it if they choose. Why would anyone oppose legislation which gives workers the right to know where their money is going? Because it is a cash cow. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney publicly vowed his union's intention to spend $35 million to fund campaign and political activities--$35 million right out of the pockets of rank and file union members. More than 62 percent of these hard-working men and women said in a poll that they do not approve. They do not want their dues going to campaign and political purposes. And most did not even know about President Sweeney's political attack with their hard-earned money. We need to stop this ripoff and give our hard-working families a break. There is a way. Support the Worker Right-To-Know Act.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a special person and true hero--Chief Warrant Officer 2 Wade Chapple of Milford. The operations group soldier was recently awarded the Soldier's Medal of Honor for an act of heroism that saved a Colombian man's Life. Serving a 3-year tour as a tactical training advisor to the Colombian Army 10th Airborne Division in Malgar, Colombia, Chapple and his crew rescued an injured Colombian man who had fallen off a cliff. First, Chapple was able to diplomatically convince the base commander to provide a helicopter for the rescue. After landing on a small finger of open space nearly 700 feet below the injured victim, Chapple and his crew of two men went to work. Chapple scaled the vertical climb dragging a stretcher that was tied to his waste. Upon arriving at the injured man, Chapple notice multiple injuries and the man in shock. Working quickly to immobilize the man, Chapple and his crew eased the injured man slowly down the steep face of the mountain The helicopter rushed the victim back to the base and there a waiting ambulance rushed the man to the hospital. Three months later, Chapple met the man who was beginning to walk again and has since recovered. The incident was reported to Chapple's commanders by the Colombian Army without his knowledge. Chapple is a symbol of today's military. Compassionate, skilled and heroic. Wade put his life on the line to save a man he didn't even know. I am proud of Wade Chapple. His great and noble rescue has made our community smile.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Amen. And I concur very strongly with the ranking member, but we have not eliminated, and I think this is very important, we have not eliminated, by any means, our ability to participate in the world. Foreign aid, which makes up less than 1 percent of our Federal budget, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, is a good investment and has benefited our interests around the globe by furthering the development of economic and political stability in the international community. H.R. 3540 allows us to continue to remain active in world events while keeping us on a path to a balanced budget. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I only have a certain amount of time, but I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and want to salute the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Callahan, for the flare in which he works with Members on both sides. I want to also extend a thank you to the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], who I believe has done yeomen's work, and we will miss him as this summer moves along but wish him good luck in his next voyage. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this bill which reflects the Foreign Operations Subcommittee's careful crafting and compromise in a time of continued reductions in the funding available for foreign assistance. It deserves our support. H.R. 3540 recognizes the fiscal situation we face and reduces the amount of money we spend overseas. But H.R. 3540 maintains our role as a leader throughout the world. This bill makes serious cuts that reflect careful consideration and the review of every foreign assistance program. We have eliminated and reduced funding to those programs that have failed to justify our support. I strongly believe that foreign aid is a crucial component of our foreign policy. The United States has a direct interest in promoting the expansion of capitalism and democracy throughout the world. Accordingly, I feel it is beneficial to American interests to aid countries which have shown a commitment to the ideals of free enterprise and individual freedom. When we consider the fast paced changes taking place in countries across the globe from Israel to India to Russia it is clear that America must not insulate itself from the international community. Yet, we will destroy our ability to assist other countries and provide for our national security if we have to continually spend greater and greater portions of our budget on interest on the national debt. We must balance the budget. That means we must reduce spending. I am very committed to reducing the deficit, lowering taxes, and empowering individuals and business by reducing the size and scope of our Federal Government. We must work toward these goals as the world's only superpower and the sole proprietor of democracy.

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

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

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