Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The biggest concern I have is this amendment will ostracize India at a very critical point in time. India is moving forward, as others have said, on important economic reform programs, making it one of the most important big emerging markets. The United States is working to build a stronger relationship with India, and we are now India's largest overseas investor and trading partner. These steps have come about very strongly in the last 4 or 5 years. These steps help to bring India closer to the United States. This amendment, I believe, is needless and damaging to this progress that is being made to the relationship between the United States and India. India is a developing country, and it does have problems and the gentleman has alluded to those, as have others. But India is working to solve those problems. The Indian Government has taken important steps to end any abuse of human rights within its borders. It has, as others have mentioned, established an independent national human rights commission to investigate and prevent human rights abuse cases, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] stated a moment ago. Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel has said the Commission, and I will not repeat it entirely, but it has surprised the skeptics in a very, very strong way and has begun to establish itself as an effective advocate for human rights. India is bringing greater accountability to all government forces. And the Indian Government is allowing access for international efforts to monitor its progress. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has praised the advances India has made on human rights. I firmly believe that passing this amendment will risk jeopardizing our close ties with India. Damaging our relationship with India will weaken our ability to use the persuasion and cooperation that we have to help India move toward full democracy and development, and we can best encourage the resolution of the problems that face India by remaining involved, and this is one of those ways of remaining involved. This amendment will punish India for making significant efforts to correct its problems. This amendment will lead us to shutting ourselves out of involvement with the India Government and hinder our efforts to help create a prosperous and free country. Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that we have been through that already this evening a number of times. I do not stand for that. I know the gentleman does not stand for that. Nobody stands for those kinds of things. The fact of the matter is we have something ongoing with India that can improve those situations. By slamming the door on India, we do not help that situation.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Moorhead for pushing this bill through Congress. It is a tribute to his fine leadership--and leadership we will miss when he departs at the end of this Congress. I am very pleased the chairman has provided this opportunity to move this important, bipartisan bill through the House. My bill, H.R. 533, has been included in this legislation, and I want to extend my appreciation to the chairman for choosing to include our language. My bill is designed to ensure that independent service organizations [ISO's] do not inadvertently become liable for copyright infringement merely because they have turned on a machine in order to service its hardware components. As it is written, current law holds them liable when they flip the switch. It places a heavy burden on our workers who need to service our computer systems. And a strict enforcement of this law could shut down the multibillion dollar high technology maintenance industry which provides thousands of jobs. In today's business world, our computer service technicians must have the flexibility to do their jobs without the fear they are breaking copyright laws. Every day our reliance on our computer systems is growing, and in today's deadline-filled, rushed business world, minutes can mean millions. These restrictions also have a negative impact on consumers. Costs and convenience are major factors when using specific computer service people. Forcing consumers into strict requirements of who can and cannot service your computer will certainly negatively impact consumers and businesses alike. With the personal computer as common in our day-to-day lives as any other household item, we need to give our computer repairmen the flexibility and opportunity to service our systems. At this point I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, the report language states: When a computer is activated, that is when it is turned on, certain software or parts thereof (generally the machine's operating system software) is automatically copied into the machine's random access memory, or RAM. In the very next sentence it states: During the course of activating the computer, different parts of the operating system may reside in the RAM at different times because the operating system is sometimes larger than the capacity of the RAM. Mr. Chairman, does activating the computer mean allowing the entire operating system to be loaded by the computer into the RAM, even if different parts of the operating system are not loaded in one step?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Again, I want to thank the chairman for his efforts and hard work. I want to thank him for including my legislation in this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a special person--Leona MacDonald Urquhart. She is a special lady because since 1924--that's right--more than 70 years, she has worked day-in and day-out at the Pine Lake Country Club. As she turns 83 years old, she continues to work at the club as executive hostess. She began working at Pine Lake at age 11 as an assistant in the kitchen and helping the housekeeping staff. With only a short leave to have her two children, she has served loyally and continuously for more than 70 years. Many people, members and guests, have walked through the doors of this club, and Leona has known and greeted them all--and they have known her. They have enjoyed her humor, her smile, her assistance, her dedication. She is an example of the work ethic and dedication that made America the greatest country in the world. Now, she deserves her praise. She deserves our loyalty. She deserves our thanks. In a world where dedication and loyalty have less and less meaning each day, Leona Urquhart is a champion of many things. But most of all, her triumph, her legacy, and her presence makes us proud. Good Luck Leona. I hope you are there for another 70 years. Pine Lake would not be the same if you are not.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a special person--Rabbi Benjamin Gorrelick, of Southfield. This week Rabbi Gorrelick will be honored on his 90th birthday for his service and commitment to our community. As Rabbi Gorrelick has said, one may retire from the pulpit, but one can never retire from their calling. His dedication, his loyalty, and his leadership are a tribute to his ability to bring people together. Born in Russian-dominated Poland, Rabbi Gorrelick came to America at age 15. Upon his arrival in New York, he enrolled in elementary school without knowing a word of English. After completing eight grades in just 18 months, he whizzed through high school and enrolled in City College of New York. After graduating from CCNY, he moved on to Harvard where he received a master's degree in sociology. More importantly, at Cambridge he met his wife, Sarah, to whom he was married for 36 years until her death in 1975. Ordained as a rabbi from the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1933, Gorrelick graduated top of his class and went to pulpits in Brooklyn, Cambridge, and Albany. During World War II, the rabbi was a U.S. Army Chaplain in Europe for 13 months. While in Belgium, he helped support 10 Jewish orphanages caring for young people and children who survived Hitler. Hundreds of Jewish orphans were aided by his efforts. He came to Detroit in 1949 where he became spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Aron. Later, he would help build Beth Achin, serving the human and spiritual needs of the community. His leadership with national and local Jewish and civic organizations is evident in his long list of activities. Good luck and thank you for your strong moral and spiritual leadership, Rabbi Gorrelick. You are an inspiration to all of us. I am delighted to wish you well in all your endeavors.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my district's latest national champions--Livonia Career/Technical Center students Eric Bode, Jill Thompson, and Mike Purcell. For the second straight year, Livonia CTC computer programming students have finished 1-2-3 in the Business Professionals of America National Leadership Conference's competition. In Phoenix, AZ, more than 4,000 delegates throughout the United States participated in the conference which included competitive events, leadership workshops and keynote speakers. More than 375 high school and college students who participated in the events were from Michigan. And for the fourth-straight year, Michigan won the most awards. Congratulations Eric, Jill, and Mile. Once again, you have not only distinguished yourself with your outstanding performance, you have highlighted the excellent work of Livonia CTC, computer programming teacher Dennis Vince and Principal Janet Haas. Vocational education, as well as improved leadership and development of our future business leaders is vital to our country's future. Livonia CTC is playing their part. I am very proud of their great work and their outstanding, success-driven students.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, we know this is not really about helping working families. If increasing the minimum wage was such a great idea, why did we not do this back in 1993? I guess the leadership at that time did not think it was important when they were too busy raising taxes on seniors, on businesses. In fact, let me share with my colleagues the President's words in those days. I know this does not mean much to some, but, in fact, he said then, on February 6, 1993, ``The minimum wage is the wrong way to raise incomes of low-wage earners.'' If my friends think 90 cents per hour is going to save working families, they are only looking at half the story. What we need to provide, of course, is tax relief to our families, not 90 cents an hour. Let me just add that for every one person this helps, it is going to hurt many more; many more in jobs lost by first-time, inexperienced workers which will increase costs and burdens for our small businesses and finally higher prices to consumers. If we want to help our working families, increase their income and get the Government out of their wallets. A minimum wage increase may be well intended, but it is wrong-headed. It is a recipe for losing jobs and opportunities and increasing unemployment. Vote ``no'' on the minimum wage.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Look out, Mr. and Mrs. America. The President is selling his own personal brand of snake oil again. But guess what? Sometimes the President does not really mean what he says. As recently as this weekend the President said he now supports welfare reform. Yes, welfare reform. He is back to that position. So far this year he has vetoed, as my colleagues know, changing welfare as we know it, not once, but twice. The President has simply surrounded this issue. In fact, he switched his position so many times I am starting to get a bit dizzy. Then he said this is, and again I quote, the healthiest economy in 30 years. If this is the healthiest economy in 30 years, then why does it lag behind all 4 years of the Carter administration? That is right. Remember the Carter years? The Carter economy grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the Clinton economy. No wonder everybody is worried. That does not sound like the healthiest economy in 30 years. So I say, enough of the Clinton snake oil, enough of the flip-flops. Americans are no longer buying that line.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule and the underlying bill. This bill repeals an outdated, depression-era law and puts the power and responsibility where it belongs, in the hands of local communities and residents, not the Washington bureaucrats. I am especially pleased with the provisions, that reform the Brooke amendment. I salute Chairman Lazio and the committee. Simply put, our current policy under the Brooke amendment punishes work and rewards welfare dependency. Here is how: Public housing rent is calculated at 30 percent of a resident's income. Thus, the more you earn, the more you pay. But if you go to work, you pay income and FICA taxes, in addition to higher rent, and also begin to lose welfare, foodstamp, and medicaid payments. Nine times out of ten, residents who find gainful employment, end up with less disposable income than if they had simply stayed on welfare. In fact the, highest marginal tax rate in the United States is not paid by millionaires or people in boardrooms, it is paid by AFDC-dependent public housing residents who accept a full-time minimum wage job. Understanding this fact is the key to understand public housing. You know why there are people trapped in poverty. The only way you can change this is to give, as the bill does, more flexibility and decisionmaking ability to local public housing authorities, who frankly have the best interests of public housing residents at heart, and have a much better track record of protecting the resident's concerns than the bureacrats at HUD. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2406 is a giant step forward in the debate of real welfare reform. We must pass this bill and rule, with Brooke fully intact, to provide the reform of Brooke, to provide the much-needed relief for our families and local communities.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was tax freedom day, May 7-- the latest it has ever been. That means American working families are working longer for the Federal Government than ever before. American working families pay almost 40 percent of their total income to the Government in taxes. American working families are giving more to the Government, leaving less for their everyday needs. Less for groceries, less for gas, less for whatever we may desire. American working families have watched their tax freedom day fall later each year under the Clinton watch. That is not rhetoric. Those are straight-up facts. The Republican- passed family tax cut would have turned this trend around. A repeal in the gas tax would turn this trend around. A capital gains tax cut would turn this trend around. American working families are taxed too much. Let us turn this Clinton tax trend around. Let us cut taxes. Let us get the Government out of America's pocket.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I guess the President just simply loves higher taxes. In 1993 he passed the highest tax increase in American history: an increase in the tax gas, an increase in Social Security taxes on seniors, an increase in taxes on small business. Now our Tax Freedom Day which we have heard so much about this morning keeps falling later and later every year under the Clinton watch. In 1992, under George Bush, it was May 2, but next year, Clinton, May 3. Next year May 5; next year, May 6; and now it is May 7, the latest the tax freedom day has ever been. We can turn the tide. We can and we should cut taxes. Let us cut them on average working families: taxes on gas, if my colleagues will, but taxes also on seniors, taxes on our small businesses, taxes on farmers, and taxes on capital gains. Let us shorten the Government's long reach into our pockets and cut taxes right across the board. Let us turn this trend around. Maybe next year people will be able to work less for the Government and more for themselves and their families.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friends Frances and Bartlett Smith, of Milford, who are celebrating their 55th year of marriage this year. In 1937, they came to Detroit to seek their fortune and found each other. Frances, with her sister Ann, came from Milford to work at Detroit Bank & Trust. Bartlett B. Smith came from Kalamazoo to attend the Detroit College of Law and work at the National Bank of Detroit. Bart and Fran met, courted and were married May 17, 1941, at the Jefferson Avenue Presbyterian Church in the Indian Village area of Detroit. Following Bart's graduation from law school, they moved back to the family farm in Cooper Township near Kalamazoo where Bart's family had been original settlers. Not only did he work the farm, he worked 12- hour days welding tanks for the war effort as he awaited the results of his bar exam. When Bart joined the U.S. Army, 3d Armored Division in Fort Knox, KY, Frances and their two young children, John and Sarah, moved back to Milford, MI, to be near her family. At the end of the war, Bart joined the Oakland County prosecutors office and served for 2 years. He opened his own firm in Milford, practiced for 46 years and retired in 1993. He was admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court having been sponsored by U.S. Senator Philip A. Hart and Oakland County Circuit Judge William John Beer. Frances joined the practice as secretary in the late 1950's and son Christopher joined him as partner following his graduation from law school. Civil duty has long been a family tradition. Frances has served on the Milford Township Library Board for 47 years, the last 30 as president of the board. She continues to serve today. Bart served as Milford Village president, councilman, member of the township board, and justice of the peace. He is a member of various civic organizations including the American Legion, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, and Masons. His service began in the 1940's, when as ``Sam McCall's son-in-law'' he was grand marshal and led the V-J Day parade down Main Street on horseback. Oldest son John is a veterinarian practicing in Ypsilanti, MI. Daughter Sarah Redmond is a financial advisor for American Express Financial Advisers. Son Steve lives in Johnson City, TN. Youngest son David lives in Howell, MI. Bart and Fran have nine grandchildren, Karen, Jeff, Brian, Kristen, Angela, Kevin, Courtney, Michael, and Paul; and two great-grandchildren, Justin and Cassandra. Growing up on stories of the Civil War and early pioneers to standing on the edge of the 21st century, they have seen much, shared greatly, and anticipate the new century. Congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I really wonder if the President and the Democrats are truly interested in raising the minimum wage or is it just that they want to score some political points? When they controlled Congress back in 1992 and 1993 with President Clinton in the White House, why was not an increase in the minimum wage on the agenda? Maybe they were too busy raising taxes on gas, on Social Security, on small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I have to look at this comment that the President made in 1993. President Clinton said, ``The minimum wage,'' and I am quoting, ``The minimum wage is the wrong way to raise incomes of low- wage earners.'' But then again, I guess we really cannot believe what the President says from day to day or time to time. By the way, if my colleagues think 90 cents an hour is going to save working families, I say my colleagues' priorities are in the wrong place. We need to provide tax relief to our families, not 90 cents an hour. Lowering taxes will raise incomes.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3103 and commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] for his efforts in bringing this legislation, which is badly needed, to the floor. H.R. 3103 is not about big insurance companies or some Government takeover, as some would suggest. It is about providing coverage for millions of uninsured, and it allows them to get it on an accessible and affordable basis. H.R. 3103 is about providing insurance to those millions of people that are currently unable to get insurance. For too long this system has stacked the deck against small business. Big businesses, such as GM, IBM, I just heard, have had the luxury of providing employees insurance through self-insuring, while small businesses lack the resources to self-insure. This bill directly addresses the inequality by allowing small businesses to join together to self-insure. Mr. Speaker, Kassebaum-Kennedy is a Cadillac coverage program, one size fits all, without affordability. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3103.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, do you remember who said ``I will change welfare as we know it''? The answer to this question is not a $64,000 question. In fact, we all know who said it: The same individual who said that the era of big government is over, except we want it to last a little longer. I wonder what the President really meant, or was it just another one of his hollow promises? I do not blame my friends on the other side of the aisle, because I know pretty much where many of you stand. You said where you stand. You have been honest and straightforward about it. Many of you want to spend more money. I understand that. Many of you are less concerned about the inefficiency and the nonproductiveness of some of these plans. I simply want to know where the President stands, not what he says. Is it candidate Clinton who wants to change welfare as we know it, or is it the current President who has vetoed every major reform? Then again, it is an election year.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the President has submitted his budget to Congress and here is the big surprise. The era of big government is not over. Once again, the President has said one thing and done another. His actions simply do not match his words. He said he would reduce spending and balance the budget, but what has he done? He has proposed more of the same old business that has piled up $5 trillion of debt. The President's budget has it all, billions in unneeded spending for wasteful programs, cleverly hidden tax increases, a back door increase on capital gains that will hurt the little guy. I had hoped that the President would have used this opportunity to offer a serious plan and engage in good-faith negotiations to balance the budget and get the economy moving again. Instead, he chose to favor his own reelection over the country's business. Now we can only hope that this is the last Clinton budget we will ever have to deal with.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor any friends at Southfield Christian School on their 25th anniversary celebration. With a deep-seated commitment to a strong program of moral and character development, Southfield Christian has set new standards for excellence among Christian schools. In fact, Southfield Christian was one of only two schools nationally to receive the prestigious Blue Ribbon Exemplary School Award from the U.S. Department of Education. With a program emphasizing both academic excellence and a commitment to developing character and integrity, Southfield Christian has a solid track record of success. More than 75 percent of their student body achieves honor roll status. The annual college acceptance average is over 95 percent and, in last year's senior class, 99 percent were accepted to colleges. And finally, nearly 77 percent of the students at Southfield Christian score nationally in the top quarter on national standardized tests. Not only are they academically outstanding, the school and its student body is involved in the local community as well. The annual fall drive for the needy yielded more than 800 winter coats, hundreds of cans of food and more than 7,000 quarters--in honor of their 25th anniversary--for the purchase of children's Bibles. With state-of-the-art facilities and a loyal, committed alumni, the future looks very bright for the next 25 years and beyond. Strengthened by their commitment and resolve to install morals and values in our future leaders, I extend my heartiest congratulations on your 25th anniversary. I am very proud of Southfield Christian, their staff, and the student body. Keep up the great work.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the President announced this morning that he would veto the bill in its current form. Apparently it falls, still, $8 billion, some say $12 billion, short of quenching his appetite for Government spending. The message of the White House seems to be, ``Ignore what we said 6 weeks ago. We want the era of big government to continue just a little bit longer.'' In fact, the President has indicated that if we try to hold him to his State of the Union address and the promise, he is going to shut down, I repeat, he is going to shut down government again. I think it is important that the media and the public understand what is happening here. The President wants to spend billions more on Government programs. If he does not get it, he will shut down government again. It is the same old broken record that we have been hearing since the beginning of this debate. I would warn the President, shutting down the Government will not reap him political gain, so let us stop playing chicken. Instead, let us move forward. We must pass this bill and go to conference. The President needs to stop threatening a shutdown and start bargaining in good faith.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President has joined the flood of other former Democrats that have switched parties? If you watched the same State of the Union speech I did, one might think so. But it is really not what the President said that matters, because he had said it all before. What matters is what he does. I was hoping the President would present a real plan to reduce the size of government, lower taxes, save Medicare, and reform the failed welfare system. Instead he gave us a mirage filled with double speak. It looks good from a distance, but the closer you get, the more you realize nothing is there. The President cannot have it both ways. Our future is too important to risk with a mirage. Now it is time to draw the line in the sand, and stand up for our principles. The old adage is ``Actions speak louder than words.'' The President has given us a lot of words. Now he needs to follow up with his actions.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that amounts appropriated in the fiscal year 1994 Defense budget are not being spent for the specific purposes for which they were intended. Central to our debates over appropriations funding in the last several months has been a tacit understanding by both sides of the aisle that the Congress, and the Congress alone, has the constitutional ``Power of the Purse.'' From this power, the Congress--and the Congress alone--specifies the objects of the appropriations funding. This means that the Congress can direct that agencies expend funds at the level, and in the direction, which Congress indicates. This principal has remained so settled that it has been virtually unchallenged--that is, until relatively recently. In recent litigation before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, however, The Justice Department has taken the position that the language commonly employed in appropriations acts to direct funding is permissive only, and not mandatory. Specifically, according to the Justice Department, the language ``not less than $40 million shall be made available only for the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences'' as employed in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act and the language ``not less than $20 million shall be made available only for the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences'' as employed in the fiscal year 1995 Defense Appropriations Act, is not binding on the agency. The Department has used this interpretation to withhold funding from the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. As a result, the Department is effectively supplanting its policy judgment for the will of Congress. And, at this very moment, important projects of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences are being scaled back, and personnel are being laid off. To clear up the interpretation of this important language, I have written to my colleagues, Mr. Livingston and Mr. Obey, and have asked for their opinions on the meaning of these terms. I ask that the Justice Department take note of the opinions of the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations when defining these terms. At this point I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record this letter and a section from the GAO's review of appropriations law. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 19, 1995. Hon. Joe Knollenberg, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Joe: Your letter regarding a Justice Department interpretation of legislative earmark appropriations bill language is interesting. It points out the strains that occur when we legislate and the Executive branch searches out loopholes. The Committee would expect, when using the language you cited ``not less than $X of the funds appropriated shall be made available only for * * *'', that the agency to which the appropriation was made would use at least that much money solely for the specified purposes in the language. After reading your letter, a review was made of the GAO Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. I have attached chapter 6(B), Types of Appropriation Language and the Concept of Earmarking. In this chapter there is a paragraph on ``not less than'' earmarks. You may find some of these citations useful. I hope this will be helpful. Sincerely, Bob Livingston, Chairman. Dave Obey, Ranking Minority Member. Chapter 6.--Availability of Appropriations: Amount b. types of appropriation language and the concept of earmarking Congress has been making appropriations since the beginning of the Republic. Over the course of this time, certain forms of appropriation language have become standard. This section will point out the more commonly used language with respect to amount. Congress may wish to specifically designate, or ``earmark,'' part of a more general lump-sum appropriation for a particular object, as either a maximum, a minimum, or both.\1\ For simplicity of illustration, let us assume that we have a lump-sum appropriation of $1,000 for ``smoking materials'' and a particular object within that appropriation is ``Cuban cigars.'' \1\ We use the term ``earmarking'' here to mean a specific statutory designation of a portion of a lump-sum appropriation or authorization. The term is also used to refer to the statutory designation of revenues for particular uses. For a brief but nevertheless useful discussion of earmarking in this latter sense, see GAO report entitled Budget Issues: Earmarking in the Federal Government, GAO/ AFMD-90-8FS (January 1990). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the appropriation specifies ``not to exceed'' $100 for Cuban cigars or ``not more than'' $100 for Cuban cigars, then $100 is the maximum available for Cuban cigars. 64 Comp. Gen. 263 (1985).\2\ A specifically earmarked maximum may not be augmented with funds for the general appropriation. \2\ A ``not to exceed'' earmark was held not to constitute a maximum in 19 Comp. Gen. 61 (1939), where the earmarking language was inconsistent with other language in the general appropriation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Statutory transfer authority will permit the augmentation of a ``not to exceed'' earmark in many, but not all, cases. In 12 Comp. Gen. 168 (1932), it was held that general transfer authority could be used to increase maximum earmarks for personal services, subject to the percentage limitations specified in the transfer statute.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to address an injustice that exists within title 11 of the United States Code regarding single asset bankruptcies. This injustice stems back to the 103d Congress when an 11th hour decision placed on arbitrary $4 million ceiling on the single asset provisions of the bankruptcy reform bill. The affect has been to render investors helpless in forclosures on single assets valued over $4 million. To rectify this problem, my bill eliminates the $4 million ceiling, thereby allowing creditors the ability to recover their losses. Under the current law, chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code becomes a legal shield for the debtor. Upon the investor's filing to foreclose, the debtor preemptively files for chapter 11 protection which postpones foreclosure indefinitely. While in chapter 11, the debtor continues to collect the rents on the commercial asset. However, the commercial property typically is left to deterioriate and the property taxes go unpaid. When the investor finally recovers the property through the delayed foreclosure, they owe an enormous amount in back taxes, they receive a commercial property left in deterioration which has a lower rent value and resale value, and meanwhile, the rent for all the months or years they were trying to retain the property went to an uncollectible debtor. My bill does not leave the debtor without protection. First, it is only as a last resort when the investor brings a foreclosure against a debtor. This usually is after all other efforts to reconcile delinquent mortgage payments are unsuccessful. Second, the debtor retains up to 90 days to reorganize under chapter 11. It should be noted, however, that single asset reorganizations are typically a false hope since the owner of a single asset does not have other properties from which he can recapitalize his business. Finally, Mr. Speaker, my bill helps all American families by making their investments more secure and more valuable. The hardworking American families who depend on their life insurance policies and who have paid for years into their pensions will save millions in reduced costs. My bill protects the ``little guy'' from being plagued with years of litigation while the commercial property owner continues to collect the rent to line his own pockets.