Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest to the gentlewoman from Colorado that I am for those same things. I am for protecting Medicare, for protecting education, I am for protecting Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, this is the last best chance perhaps that we will have to balance this budget. We have a window of opportunity right how to do the right thing for the American people. The Republican majority has a plan. I do not see one coming from the President. He says he wants to balance the budget, to produce a plan, yet he has not produced a plan. He has not even shown us his plan. Instead of working with the Republican majority to find some common ground, he continues to mislead America with imaginary spending cuts on Medicare, Medicaid, education, and so forth. The President's philosophy seems to be to scare the children, scare the poor, scare the veterans, and scare the seniors. As 1995 comes to an end, the American people need to know that the only thing standing between them and a balanced budget, lower taxes, lower interest rates, and more jobs, is the President, President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, the majority stands ready to work with the President. It is time for him to provide leadership and help us end the days of spend now, and worry later.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. To me, it is an honor, and it is very appropriate that I be here to join my colleagues in congratulating John Dingell on his 40th anniversary, 40 years, 4 decades. In fact, it spans in effect five decades from the 1950's through the 1990's. I think of that, and I go back to the year that John Dingell came to this Congress after his father had been here for over 20 years, and I think about Elvis Presley who had not even come into being. I think about Sputnik, which was just around the corner, but still had not happened. Those were the Eisenhower years; and before John Kennedy became President, John Dingell was a veteran in this House. I must tell you also that, coming from the opposite side of the aisle, John Dingell and I agree to disagree on a number of issues, but we agree on a great many issues too. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the accomplishments that he has made in this body. I have more respect and admiration for the man. There is no doubt that John Dingell has left his mark on this body, and he will continue. His kindness, his courtesy is something that perhaps does not shine through, but as a junior Member of this body and having been here a short time, I have had the experience, or I have had the, call it delightful experience of gaining some of the courtesy, sharing some of the courtesy he has extended to me. Many of the issues that he and I have agreed to agree upon are issues that obviously involve Michigan, but they also deal with matters that go beyond his district and my district and the State of Michigan to involve the country at large; and most notably, I know we have worked very hard, and with other Members of this body to provide access to foreign markets for the domestic auto manufacturers in our area. Again, this is a matter that we found common ground on, that has done remarkable things for our State, our locality, and our country. John Dingell is an ardent defender of the governing philosophy of the Democratic Party, and he has worked with Republicans for years and years and years to find that common ground on many important bills. This year, more recently, his input on the House Committee on Commerce was instrumental in moving forward a telecommunications reform bill that would create millions of new jobs and provide better telecommunications services at lower prices to the American people. So again, I just want to emphasize the common ground, and I think that is the mark of a true legislator, someone who may disagree philosophically on a matter here or there, but can find reasons to get together, to embark on the same course and come to a conclusion that benefits all of us. I would never question John Dingell's patriotism. He never questions mine either. He might question my thinking and I might on occasion question his, but he is a gentleman, he is a man who believes very strongly that you have a right to your philosophy, but still, in fact, he has a right to disagree with you. I do not think there is any more that you can ask of any individual. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, John Dingell's character and integrity are his strongest attributes. One thing that I have learned in the short time that I have known him is that when he gives you his word, you know that you can count on him to keep it. That is a quality that many people search all of their lives for and can never accomplish. I can tell you that John Dingell accomplished that years ago. I see signs of that every time I talk to him. An interesting comment: Just a short time ago I happened to be talking to John, and I cannot even tell you what we were talking about, but it had to do with--we were paying, I guess, some mutual respect, praising each other in one of those moments, and I said something to him along the line of, I appreciate all of his advice, and he said, I do not recall ever giving you any advice, I said, well, maybe you have not by words, but you have by actions. I would say also, John, it has been words as well, but certainly by your actions, and I think those actions speak much, much louder than words. I respect what you have done and the character you have shown me. In closing, I just want to again congratulate my colleague from Trenton, from down river, on this 40th anniversary in the House. John Dingell is the dean of the House. He is called Mr. Chairman, but I also want to go beyond John and salute the lady who has already been called the best asset he has, and I believe that she is, his wife, Debbie. Debbie is his greatest asset. I wish you both the very best, and I again salute you, John Digell, in obtaining this milestone. Thank you.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman just said and contrary to what we have been hearing from the Democratic side, the tax cuts, all those billions of dollars, $245 billion, are not for the wealthiest Americans. In fact, 89 percent, almost 90 percent, of the $500 per child tax credit, that is the largest tax cut in our budget, goes to families making less than $75,000 a year. Over the next 7 years, this pro-family credit will increase the take-home pay of the average American by $7,000. I do not know about your district, but $7,000 is a fair amount of money in mine. In Washington that may not sound like much money, but to the working parents of families who have children, they need that. That is a lot to them. It may help them on their mortgage payments, it may help them save for a college education. They can spend it as they will. It is their money in the first place. It should not have been taken from their pocket. Mr. Speaker, we must put Uncle Sam on a diet and balance the budget, but we must allow working families to keep more of what they earn. One other point. Balancing the budget and cutting taxes are not mutually exclusive. The Federal Government spends too much money, not because it taxes too little.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and appreciate his leadership on this issue. Incidentally, and this is not so incidentally, I rise in strong support for this conference report and for its passage. But I do want to refer to, first of all, the chart that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] brought out. I do like the looks of that chart. It is getting better. It is because we are working a lot harder to get to a point of success. None of this is very easy. The chairman referred to the fact that we had 193 amendments in the conference committee. We completed and agreed upon 192. The one remaining, of course, is the one we are dealing with today. This language, I think, ensures that any expenditure of funds for population planning or the UNFPA must be, as has been pointed out here, specifically authorized by this body, which has not been done. Somebody on the other side made the comment about it has not been done in 10 years. Well, that is not to say it should not be done. I think it should be. We have an opportunity perhaps where that will take place. We have to be able to debate these things or we will not get anywhere. So maybe this is, in the eyes of the gentlewoman from New York, an extraneous matter, should be done away with, forgotten about, so we can pass this beautiful bill. Well, it is important to a lot of us. It is worth debate. It is something that we want to carry on and come to some conclusion, a successful conclusion. I would not suggest to you that it is guaranteed, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] stated, that the Senate will just let this thing float and die. We do not know that yet entirely. There is some idea here that may be beginning to impress them, that there is perhaps more to this and we can come to a conclusion that will satisfy everybody. As I have said many times before, I strongly support this conference report. It balances fiscal restraint and the needs of foreign policy, and it reflects the reasoned compromise and considerable cooperation that did take place between all of the Members from both sides in committee and also in the conference committee. It deserves bipartisan support. I think we are at a point now where we can get to a position of passing a bill that is in dire need of being passed. I agree with the sense of urgency but I do not agree that this is an unimportant matter. It is very important to may of us, and it does allow for the continuation of funding at the appropriate time for the specific family planning ideas. It just has to be authorized. H.R. 1868 allows us to continue to remain active in world events while it reflects our budgetary constraints, and you all know that. This conference report reflects, I believe, what is best for this body. We will send it to the Senate. They will make their decision. I support this conference report and urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, while there are some significant differences between the Republican Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and President Clinton's unbalanced budget act of 1995, both sides in the debate agree that we should spend significantly more on Medicare each year. Now, the difference between the increased spending in President Clinton's budget and our budget over the next 7 years is, get this, less than 2 percent. So where is the fight? Under the Republican budget, Medicare spending grows from $178 billion to $289 billion by the year 2002, and spending per senior grows from $4,800 to $7,100 by the year 2002. Under the President's budget, Medicare spending starts out at $178 billion, just like under the Republican plan, and increases to $294 billion by the year 2002. Spending per senior citizen increases from $4,800, again just like the Republican budget, up to $7,245, a pinch less than 2 percent over the Republican plan. So again I ask, where is the beef? Where is the problem? Mr. Speaker, it is time that the President stop using imaginary Medicare spending cuts as an excuse for not balancing this budget. It is time for him to help the Republican majority put our House in order and save the American dream for the next generation.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is the same conference report as before, but a decidedly different budgetary playing field. Since the last time we were here, President Clinton has signed the Defense bill, which, for the time being, takes off the table the honey pot of money the administration was seeking to redirect toward spending on social programs. Indeed, the choice before us today seems more clear today than ever before. Either President Clinton signs this bill, or all of the programs under its jurisdiction will most likely be funded at the levels contained in the last continuing resolution. This bill is really the last, best chance we have to increase spending on environmental protection; to increase spending on affordable housing; to increase spending on space exploration and scientific research compared to current funding levels. The numbers are indisputable. Every major program in this conference report gets an increase. NSF up 0.63 percent; FEMA up 1.74 percent; NASA up 1.92 percent; VA medical care up 2.47 percent; EPA up 11.46 percent; and HUD up 12.44 percent. So I urge my colleagues, think long and hard about that before you vote. Now Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to address the veterans medical care issue. There has been a lot of debate about the conference committee's actions following this latest motion to recommit. And I think it is time we start separating the facts from all the political theater. When the conference report was last brought to the floor, the minority moved that it be sent back to conference to add more money for veterans' medical care. At the time, I doubt that even the sponsors of the motion to recommit believed that it would prevail. After all, motions to recommit are procedural votes that are, with few exceptions, largely symbolic in nature. Certainly, this motion to recommit did not have the same significance as, say the Stokes-Boehlert motion we considered earlier this fall. But I think that many Members saw this vote as an opportunity to demonstrate their concern for the Nation's veterans. Who knows, maybe some Members voted to recommit the VA-HUD bill just out of habit. Either way, the motion passed. But I think it is clear that this was not an organized attempt to put more money into veterans medical care. If it were, the sponsors surely would have offered a package of offsetting spending cuts to fund the increase. They did not. So the conference committee treated the motion for what it really was--a feel-good vote. I believe that every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, shares a genuine concern for those Americans who have sacrificed their health and well-being in defense of our great Nation. [[Page H 14189]] Indeed, in the bill before us today, we have treated veterans medical programs better than any other program under our jurisdiction. The lesson here is that procedural votes, however politically appealing, have real consequences. So I urge my colleagues, let us keep the process moving along. Vote for the conference report, and resist any further procedural potshots fired from the sidelines.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Robert D. Bennett. For the past 25 years, Bob Bennett has honorably served the city of Livonia, MI, as an elected official. From 1970 to 1987, he served on the city council. A former president of the council, he was elected mayor of Livonia in 1988. As mayor, Bob Bennett has made Livonia one of the best places in America to live. In fact, Livonia was recognized this year by a prominent nonprofit organization as being the 8th best place in America to raise a child. While Mayor Bennett's contributions to Livonia are too numerous to list, I want to pay special consideration to his successful effort to implement the DARE program in Livonia's schools; his work to make Livonia's streets safer by providing the city's police officers with the latest crime fighting technology, and his leadership on financial matters that has improved Livonia's bond rating from A to A+. The people of Livonia are grateful for Bob Bennett's dedication to public service. On their behalf, I wish Bob and his wife, Janet, the very best in their future endeavors. Mayor Bennett, who is term-limited, is a native of Highland Park MI. He served in the Air Force from 1946 to 1949. In 1955, he earned a B.S. in engineering law from Wayne State University.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, for years politicians in Washington have paid lip service to the idea of balancing the budget. But when it came time to get the job done, special interests and weak backbones have always carried the day. The new Republican majority made a commitment to end business as usual in Washington. We promised the American people that we would balance the budget so they could have more jobs, lower interest rates, and more take-home pay. We have kept our word. After months of hard work and several tough votes, we put America's families and America's children above the politics of the past and passed the first balanced budget in 26 years. Mr. Speaker, we have provided President Clinton with the opportunity to do the right thing. I sincerely hope that he seizes the day. The American people cannot afford to have the same old excuses and Washington gimmicks kill the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the staff for all their hard work. Without the chairman and, obviously, the staff, we would not be here today. Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD bill has never been an attractive piece of legislation. Never. It contains funding for a wide variety of programs that represent different and often conflicting priorities. What we have before us is the product of this task, and it is a good one. The bill does not simply spread the pain throughout all of the programs in its jurisdiction, it makes the tough choices which are necessary, but it also preserves funding for those programs which work well. There are some who will complain that the spending cuts in our bill are just simply too deep. Mr. Speaker, let me make one point. We spend over $5 billion for environmental protection and over $20 billion for affordable housing in this bill. Just a few days ago, as my colleagues know, during the Government shutdown only 4 percent of EPA's 18,000 employees were considered essential and, I repeat, only 1 percent of HUD's employees were considered essential. So it seems to me that it would be much easier to say that perhaps these cuts are not deep enough; they should be deeper. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every Member of this body, given the chance, would draft a different VA-HUD bill. I would like to make a few changes myself. But to use an often-heard quote, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Can I get the chairman's assurance that the offending language will be removed if this bill is vetoed and if negotiations on H.R. 2099 are resumed for any other reason?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I seek the time just to engage our chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], in a colloquy. I would like to reserve a serious reservation that I have with respect to the statement of the manager's language regarding amendment No. 58. Section 223(D) of the administrative provisions was intended to address HUD's pattern of regulation regarding property insurance. My problem is simply this: The language does not precisely reflect the compromise that was reached with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and others. I want to address that.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, in a cynical ploy to distort reality for political gain, the minority party continues to decry the so-called student loan cuts in our budget. It is time to start telling the American people the truth. My Republican colleagues understand the importance of helping low- income students pay for college. That is why we protect student aid in our budget. Contrary to the battle cry of the minority, there are no student loan cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. In fact, total student loan volume will grow from $24 billion this year to $36 billion in 2002. And more loans will be available next year than ever before. Student loans are preserved. No student will be cut off. And no student will be required to pay more for his or her loan. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't take a Harvard professor to figure out what's going on. Democrats are trying to regain power by scaring the American people with imaginary spending cuts. This is downright dishonest.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the Hefley amendment. It has been stated there is no public support for a mission to Bosnia. There is no national security interest to send American soldiers to die in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to say no to the funding. We can help this President. We can prevent the President from making a mistake that will cost him more than a few points in the polls. It will cost the lives of young American men and women, our sons and daughters. Some may argue--and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] did a tremendous job--that this is not the role of Congress to deny the President the ability to forge his own foreign policy. But the President has never told us why he believes that peace can be established in a war zone, a civil war, a mission impossible. He has never made his case. Mr. Speaker, we have tried to show the White House our concerns and the problems with their policies. They have looked away. Therefore, we must stand up and shout with our only real power: the funding. There should be no funds for Americans to die in a war that is not ours.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise and join my colleagues in urging the House to reaffirm its strong commitment to the Callahan amendment language, the very language which passed the House on October 31 by a vote, and most of my colleagues know this, by a vote of 232 to 187. This amendment prevents taxpayer money from going to fund the promotion or performance of abortions. It does not reduce, and I would challenge the comments of the gentleman from New York, does not reduce funding for international family planning. It simply ensures that our money is spent saving lives and not taking them. Mr. Speaker, the statement has been made, and I am just repeating it, that this is the very same language that we passed before. The will of the House is very clear on this issue. Our limited funds, and we do have limited funds, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Obey] spoke in regard to some of this, as has the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], that we do have limited funds, but those funds for foreign assistance programs should not be spent on promoting or performing abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Callahan motion and insist on the House-passed language.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Whitfield's amendment to H.R. 2539, the ICC Termination Act of 1995. Every so often people inform me of a law which shocks one's conscience and you say to yourself, that cannot be true. Well, today there is a law on the books called labor protection which requires employers to pay up to 6 years of income and benefits to employees who are adversely affected by a railroad transaction. When I heard this, I was amazed. So I had to repeat it to myself, Federal law mandates employers to pay up to 6 years of wages and benefits to an adversely affected employer no matter what their status is. In the 1980's the ICC understood that this archaic mandate was the thorn in the side of small railroad owners who wanted to buy light density lines--they could just not afford paying these wages on top of buying the lines. Fortunately, under a policy know as 10901 exemption, there was a realization that it was better to preserve the service of railroads and save jobs than facing line abandonment. In many ways, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] alluded to this, it saved 30,000 miles of track and created 10,000 jobs. In effect, it spawned a great deal of new business, small business, and jobs were retained at high levels. This has also been confirmed by the chairman. However, in 1995 the ICC twice has imposed labor protection. This is a complete reversal of previous ICC's position. Mr. Chairman, it is not the place of Government to mandate labor protection. Let us leave that to the unions and management. Unfortunately, the Whitfield amendment keeps the Government's hand in railroad transactions. I would like to also add that in my home State of Michigan, Conrail announced that it is looking to sell approximately 2,500 miles of light rail. I want to see these lines in use--not abandoned. So I ask my colleagues to vote against the Whitfield amendment and support H.R. 2539 in its original form.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman kindly. The Republican majority does not want to shut down the Federal Government. I think that has been clearly stated. However, we are absolutely committed to placing our financial house in order. We had 25 years without balancing a budget. We have heard that before, but it is about time we started on the road to accomplishing that fact. Balancing the budget is no small task, Mr. Speaker. If it was easy, it would have been done a long time ago. So it does take some diligence, some dedication, and some perseverance to cut Government spending. Some in this body believe the majority here on the Republican side should just simply give in to President Clinton and continue the policies of spend now and worry later. I think most of us disagree. Certainly I disagree very strongly. We have to hold steadfast to our commitment to reduce discretionary spending and eliminate the deficit. The gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, recalled that over the years the CR is nothing new. This is not a new gimmick, a new gag, something we are trying to pull on our colleagues. In fact, for 2 years in a row there were 13 bills. That is the total number of bills in the appropriations lineup. So, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is acting responsibly. I heard the gentleman previous to me speak about not doing our job. Well, I tell my colleagues that we have done our job. The Constitution says we pass the bills and the President has to sign them. Now, the President will have an opportunity on Monday to do just that. It is his decision, it is his choice, and if President Clinton decides to veto the CR, a Federal Government shutdown will occur but it will be because, and only because he decided to place politics above the interests of the American people and the future of America's children. I say this is a proper CR. I say we pass it. I urge support.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, for months the minority has engaged in a vicious smear campaign designed to scare the American people into believing that the Republican majority is working against their interests. I am here today to tell the American people that the sky is not falling. In fact, we are finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. A light emanating from the bright future that awaits our children because the Republican majority is requiring the Federal Government to live within its means. It's simply immoral to spend money we don't have and expect the next generation to pick up the bill. Our plan to balance the budget ensures that our children will have a future that is free of debt and full of opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we can't continue to perpetuate the policies of spend now and worry later. It's time to place America's families and America's future above the politics of the past. It's time to do the right thing and balance the budget.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 4, the world suffered a great loss. Prime Minister Rabin's leadership and commitment to peace in the Middle East will be missed. His untimely death is nothing less than tragic, not only to his family and the people of Israel, but to everyone who yearns for the end of bloodshed in the Middle East. The United States has always stood beside Israel. Now more than ever, we must reaffirm our commitment to the parties involved in the peace process to ensure that Yitzhak Rabin's vision becomes a reality. Mr. Speaker, our hearts and prayers go out to the people of Israel and Prime Minister Peres. The challenges of the future are large, but not insurmountable. Mr. Rabin has shown us that courage and perseverance can win the day. Let us learn from his example.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Stokes motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, if you listened only to the supporters of the motion, you would think its defeat will result in the wholesale environmental destruction of our lands, waterways, and air quality. Folks, this is nothing more than good, old-fashioned scare tactics, dressed up in a pretty green wrapper. It's not the environment that's at stake here--it is the power of the House. Every Member knows that many of these riders will never make it out of conference--and those that do survive will represent sound, environmentally neutral policy. But every Member also needs to know that these riders represent bargaining power for the House. The riders are leverage we can use to achieve meaningful spending cuts--protect important veterans programs--and pare back some of the other body's ill-advised housing language. Yes, this may well be the feel-good environmental vote of the year, but I ask you: is it really worth it to sell out the House conferees for a press release? Mr. Speaker, we need to stick together as a team on this one. We need to reject the easy vote, and cast the right vote. Defeat the previous question--vote for the substitute motion.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Chairman John Myers, ranking member Tom Bevill, and the rest of the conferees who worked long and hard on this bill. By legend, Halloween is a night filled with fear wrought by ghouls, ghosts, and goblins. Yet in contrast, tonight America should sleep a little sounder knowing their children's future is a little brighter. With a balanced budget in sight, America's children can look forward to achieving the American dream. In an effort to reduce the budget deficit, we have made real cuts in energy and water programs and produced a good bill. I understand that many Members would have cut further. Frankly, I would support deeper cuts in some areas. Others may have cut less. But we have produced a balanced bill, one that cuts wasteful spending, while maintaining important programs in the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, and related agencies. This bill is far from business as usual. We cut the Department of Energy by $173 million and we cut the entire energy and water budget by $707 million. Our budget is $1.4 billion below the Clinton administration's budget request. We made cuts in several programs including: We cut $138 million for the Army Corps of Engineers; we cut $113 million in solar and renewables; we cut $119 million in fusion energy; we cut $29 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority; and we cut $102 million in the Appalachian Regional Commission. I am encouraged by the progress we made toward reducing the costs of our Nation's energy and water programs. I look forward to making even deeper cuts in the following fiscal years as we work to eliminate the deficit. The Federal Government does not exist only to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. It has a responsibility to ensure the safe, economical, and productive stewardship of our national energy interests. But when the power of the Federal Government is abused; when the treasury of the Federal Government is wasted; when the size of the Federal Government is too large and too expensive, then it becomes imperative that we focus on reducing the deficit and regain control of our national priorities. So let the children get spooked a little tonight by the ghosts and goblins. But when it comes to our children's future, give them some hope and security. Vote in favor of deficit reduction. Vote in favor of the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Conference report.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and thank him for those kind comments. I will pay back by saying that I think the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has done an outstanding and remarkable job at being the compromiser in the final minutes and all the way through, but especially in the final moments. I also want to pay tribute to the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Wilson], because I truly think this committee has done a great deal to work together. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this conference report which reflects the careful crafting by the House and Senate conferees. Balancing fiscal restraint and the needs of foreign policy, H.R. 1868 reflects the reasoned compromise and considerable cooperation that took place between the two bodies. It deserves bipartisan support. H.R. 1868 recognizes the fiscal situation we face and reduces the amount of money we spend on foreign assistance. But H.R. 1868 also reflects our continued belief in the importance of maintaining our role as a leader in global events. This bill does not blindly slash foreign aid. We make serious cuts that reflect careful consideration and the review of every program. We have eliminated and reduced funding to those programs that have failed to justify continued support. This conference report is below the Foreign Operations Subcommittee 602(b) allocation. This bill will help us move towards a balanced budget. 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. With the end of the cold war, there exists a sentiment in our country to place foreign affairs on the back burner and focus on domestic problems. We cannot ignore the domestic problems of crime, health care, education, and the economy, but I believe that recent events in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Bosnia illustrate that America must not insulate itself from the international community. Faced with a national debt that is strangling our economy, Congress is operating under severe pressure to reduce spending and rightfully so. 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. But we must work toward these goals as the world's only superpower and the greatest proprietor of democracy. We have reduced foreign aid in this bill but we have not eliminated our ability to participate in the world. Foreign aid which makes up less than 1 percent of our Federal budget 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. 1868 allows us to continue to remain active in world events while it reflects our budgetary constraints. This conference report reflects the joint work of the House and Senate. I support this conference report very strongly and urge my colleagues to do likewise.