Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, according to the President and I quote. Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it grow at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare cut or a Medicaid cut. So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that that is not what's going on. While this statement is an excerpt from a speech given to the AARP in 1993, the President's words are very relevant to the current debate on Medicare. House Republicans are not proposing Medicare cuts. In fact, under our balanced budget plan Medicare will still be one of the fastest growing programs in the Federal budget. And spending per Medicare beneficiary will increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in 2002. Mr. Speaker, saving Medicare from bankruptcy is too important for politics as usual. Instead of scaring seniors with imaginary Medicare cuts, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to acknowledge the pending crisis in Medicare, roll up their sleeves, and help us preserve, protect, and strengthen this vital program.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman makes a point, but this frankly is not research, what the gentleman is talking about. All I am saying, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts agrees with me, is that we have not cut out the idea of considering renewables. They are not being cut away. In fact, the basic research has been done. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is talking about applied research. I would say to my colleague that this is the money that this committee has found to be substantial enough to create what he needs to make his project work. Let the marketplace decide.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the courtesy of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]. I do rise in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. This is a basic question of priorities. To the solar industry's credit, solar technology is no longer at a basic research and development level. It is in fact a commercial technology, ready for use as an energy source in a variety of applications. It is ready, but in many ways, the public is not. Frankly, I am skeptical that solar energy will ever be the prominent energy source, due to the expense of manufacturing solar panels and the limits in their energy-producing capabilities. I do expect that solar energy will continue as a secondary energy provider for specific energy needs, such as isolated structures which need a limited supply of energy. I am more optimistic about the future of other energy programs, like fusion, for example, which would be a substitute for the current dependence on fossil fuels. I want to repeat what has been said by others, Mr. Chairman. We are not cutting the entire solar and renewable energy program. Current funding allows continued research into this area at the most basic research and development level. I believe the solar energy program and any other applied technology must prove itself in the marketplace. I believe that only when the cost to obtain and process fossil fuels becomes increasingly more expensive will the time become right for alternative energy sources, including solar energy. This way they can compete in a free market. I believe the energy debate is more appropriately resolved by the consumer in that free market. Let the consumer decide. Let the market work freely. Currently, the relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the form of petroleum, natural gas, and coal keeps these energy sources at the forefront. [[Page H 6842]] Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has worked very carefully with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member, and the rest of the subcommittee, to produce a fiscally responsible bill while maintaining a productive energy and water program. We could debate the merits of increasing funds for every Federal program ad infinitum. If my colleagues are committed to balancing the Federal budget, then they should support the bill as it is and vote in opposition to this amendment. We only seem, in Congress, to try to nourish things that just will not grow in the marketplace. Now, there is a place for this, but frankly we did not cut funding out entirely. We reduced it at a level where we restored enough money to do the job. Let us give it time to work its will.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. This is a good bill. This bill was created in the spirit of fiscal constraint, yet it prudently continues the gradual downsizing of the Federal energy and water program. I believe it is imperative for this Nation to set its priorities regarding Federal spending. This bill has cut almost $1.6 billion from the 1995 budget and over $2 billion from the Administration's recommendation. In consideration of these cuts, this bill prioritizes where the funds should be appropriated. The Energy and Water Appropriation Subcommittee has placed a high priority on basic research and development. During the past 17 years since the creation of the Department of Energy, the DOE's focus has been dispersed to a wide array of large Federal programs. Solar and renewables, magnetic fusion, nuclear, and fossil energy begin the list of energy sources the Department of Energy spends billions of dollars each year in an attempt to find the safe and efficient answer to our energy needs. Frankly, I believe an open and free market is a preferable forum to decide our Nation's energy policy. Withstanding my commitment to a free market, I do recognize that the Federal Government has a proper role in Energy policy to a limited extent, especially in basic research and development. However, once an energy discovery becomes an applicable energy source, I believe the role of the Federal Government should be limited, and eventually eliminated. Let the entrepreneurial spirit of America apply technology obtained through basic research and development into a practical application. Let the working American family encourage the entrepreneur through the direct support of this entrepreneur's innovation. Encourage the individual innovator by removing burdensome and intrusive regulations. Don't stifle the scientists' imagination by forcing him to plod through a mountain of paper work to obtain Federal funding. And when the consumer chooses one energy source over another, don't interfere with the consumer judgment. Although we have cut over $2 billion from the administration's budget, including over $1.8 billion cut directly from the Department of Energy's budget, we did not eliminate the Department of Energy itself. And it is not the Appropriations proper role to do so. The proper place for such legislation to be introduced is in the authorizing committees, where an open and full public debate can follow. It is important to understand that even if the Department of Energy is disbanded, a number of programs would remain which require Federal oversight and interaction. For example, the largest focus of the DOE is its defense and national security programs which take up over 60 percent of the Department's funding. These programs include nuclear research, weapons stewardship, and nuclear waste management. To be candid, I am not happy about every provision of this appropriations bill. For example, I would support smaller cuts in the fusion energy program that promises a safe and inexpensive energy source for the future. And I would seek further cuts in some of the applied technologies, like the solar and renewable energy program. But we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. This bill restores prudence by balancing our interest in fiscal responsibility and our interest in a safe, clean and efficient energy and water program. I seek and encourage your support of this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, Republicans in Congress are keeping our promises to the American people. Our budget resolution eliminates the deficit, saves Medicare from bankruptcy, and lowers taxes on working families. Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from the other side of the isle, our tax relief package will not bust the budget. Our tax cuts represent only 2 percent of the $12.1 trillion in Federal spending over the next 7 years, and are fully paid for. Furthermore, we prove our commitment to balancing the budget, by delaying the implementation of our tax cuts until CBO certifies we have produced a plan that eliminates the deficit by 2002. Our fiscal house is in chaos because the Government spends to much money--not because it taxes too little. Lowering taxes will help families get ahead, stimulate the economy, and create new jobs and businesses. Mr. Speaker, as we work to eliminate the deficit and reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, we should also allow families and businesses to keep more of what they earn.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this bill which reflects the subcommittee's careful crafting and compromise. I particularly wanted to salute the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and of course the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] who has been a strong advocate for bringing together this compromise. It deserves bipartisan support. It is not a Republican idea, it is not a Democratic idea, it is an American idea. H.R. 1868 recognizes the fiscal situation we face and reduces the amount of money that 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 some 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. Foreign aid is a crucial component of our foreign policy. 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, and I admit 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. But we must work toward these goals as the world's only superpower and the sole 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 event while it reflects our budgetary constraints. I support this bill very strongly, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of Congress in knowing what is wrong and right with the Medicare system. I appreciate this opportunity to share with the body just one example of the disturbing waste that occurs in our Medicare bureaucracy. I first heard this story last week when it aired on WJBK-TV2 in Detroit during a segment called the ``Hall of Shame.'' Mrs. Jean English, while going through the mail of her recently deceased brother, found a bill for his last hospital stay. Her brother, suffering from a terminal illness, died only a few days after being admitted. The bill for the 4-day period came to $368,511.09. All of it had been forwarded to Medicare for payment. Shocked by the outrageous expense, Mrs. English called the hospital for an explanation. What she got was a 14-page itemized statement. And the greatest expense? $342,982.01 for emergency room supplies for a 7-hour stay in the ER. Well, after much hemming and hawing, the hospital admitted that it had made a mistake. Oops. Instead of $347,982.01, the actual charge should have been $61.30. That is right $61.30. An overcharge of $347,920.71! The problem was found. End of story? Hardly. The errant bill had been sent to Medicare and paid by Medicare. That is right--they paid the bill. Now Jean found the mistake--a bill for $350,000 seemed a little excessive to her. Didn't the people at Medicare notice that supplies for the ER had become a little expensive? Well, in all fairness, Medicare's computer noticed the problem--sort of. The bill total seemed large so Medicare cut it by 70 percent paying the hospital $67,000. But the actual cost of care was only $25,000. Medicare found the problem and still overpaid by $50,000. And Medicare claims this system works? And when this was brought to the attention of the folks over at Medicare they said, and I quote, ``This case shows . . . that the Medicare system worked as expected.'' If the system is expected to work like this no wonder it will be bankrupt in 7 years. When Medicare determined the bill was in error why didn't they look at the items to find the mistake? After all, $350,000 for supplies seemed unreasonable to Jean. Don't the people working for Medicare notice a charge of $350,000 for supplies? Or is this happening all the time? ``Close enough for government work'' is an old adage that seems to be true here. And why, Mr. Speaker, does Medicare arbitrarily cut 70 percent off if the bill seems in error? According to its own statement this is how the problem was fixed. ``When the bill was received from the hospital, the system automatically reduced it by more than 70 percent.'' It may sound like a solution but the example here shows why this kind of logic is helping to bankrupt the Medicare system. The actual charge for the supplies should have been $61.30. That's only .0002 percent of what Medicare was charged. And Medicare paid 30 percent of the full charge--$67,000--resulting in a huge overpayment. How hard is it to look at a bill that has already set off the alarms as being incorrect and find exactly what isn't right? I am disturbed that Medicare seems to believe that just cutting the total amount paid addressed the problem. Now maybe I am too naive but I believe the system should fix its mistakes not just automatically cut a bill by 70 percent. Shouldn't the details of the bill be looked at? Are all bills automatically cut by 70 percent? This system makes no sense. If we are to save Medicare from bankruptcy we must find the solutions to problems like this. I stand here today because I know this story is not unique. Jean English found the mistake and brought it to our attention. But how many errant bills go unnoticed? And at what cost to the system and our seniors. Let us work together with the American people to stop waste in the system. Let us fix the problem and save Medicare before it gets too late.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, our Democratic colleagues continue to distort our plan to balance the budget. Specifically, they have--in demagogic fashion--argued that our budget plan will devastate education in our country. In reality, our budget plan will protect important programs and consolidate and eliminate those that are duplicative and inefficient. Before attacking our efforts to balance the budget and lower taxes on working families, I ask that my Democratic colleagues review the administration's 1996 budget request for the Department of Education. The President proposes cutting the Department's budget by 9.8 percent and eliminating 30 percent of its programs. Contrary to his rhetoric of late, the President's budget seems to acknowledge that we should streamline Federal education programs. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President and my Democratic colleagues to quit playing politics-as-usual and begin working with us to balance the budget. It is time to quit playing games and get down to the real business at hand.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, removing the in-school interest subsidy on student loans is one of the tough choices that must be made in order to balance the budget. With a national debt that exceeds $4.7 trillion, it is hard to justify saving a subsidy for students who can expect to earn 71 percent more over their lifetime than someone who just goes to high school. It is simply not fair to ask working Americans--who are struggling to make ends meet--to pay the interest payments on the student loans of future doctors and lawyers. Removing the in-school interest subsidy will not limit access to Government-backed student loans. Eligible students will still be able to borrow money to help pay for their education. And, no student will be asked to pay for their loans while they are in school. We are simply asking that they pay the full cost of the loan--after they graduate. Finally, we must keep in mind that college students will substantially benefit from a balanced budget. Balancing the budget will lower interest rates on student loans, result in more high-wage jobs, and allow students to keep more of their salaries once they begin working. Mr. Speaker, removing the in-school interest subsidy is both fair and necessary. And, it is time to start telling the truth about this proposal.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frelinghuysen amendment. I, too, look out by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], we have a unique problem. My home State of Michigan has been administering its own wetlands program for some 15 years. We are not trying to hide behind a Federal program, we are trying to maintain the program that we have which works. I do not believe in every facet of this program. In fact, I believe that Michigan and New Jersey should look to the gentleman here as a road map to some reform. However, I believe that the Governor, the Governors of given States, should have maximum flexibility to govern the transition from the current program to a new and better one. This amendment will simply give the Governor that flexibility by allowing him to either continue the current program, adopt the new Federal guidelines, or work with the Secretary of the Army to craft a hybrid approach that uses the best from both plans. This is consistent, I believe, with the current philosophy here in Washington, and certainly with this Congress, to give States the specific flexibility to do what is best for the particular State. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman. He was very generous in his time. We did spend a great deal of time in trying to work out an agreement. Although we could not reach that agreement, I sincerely thank him for his courtesy and his generosity in terms of time, effort, and consideration. I do urge, however, the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Job Skills Development Act of 1995. This bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ease the restrictions on volunteers. The FLSA requires covered employers to compensate individuals defined as ``employees'' according to mandatory minimum wage and overtime requirements. While there are exceptions to the employer-employee relationship for volunteers, the restrictions on permissable volunteer activities are excessively rigid. As a result, individuals seeking to gain valuable work experience and exposure in a competitive profession by volunteering their services to an employer are often prohibited from doing so, even if the individual has no expectation of receiving compensation and adamantly denies that they are an employee. When determining whether or not an individual is a volunteer and exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA, the Department of Labor and the Federal courts take into consideration the type of services provided by an individual, who benefits from the rendering of the services, and how long it takes to provide the services. Because business-related services are not considered to be typical volunteer activities, individuals are often prohibited from volunteering their services to businesses in exchange for work experience. The Department of Labor has carved out exceptions for student learners and trainees. However, if an employer gains an immediate advantage from the services provided by a volunteer, the Department of Labor will consider the volunteer to be an employee and require that the individual be paid the minimum wage. The restrictions on volunteer activities are intended to safeguard against employer coercion. Protecting workers from unscrupulous employers is an important goal and must be preserved in our labor laws. However, the current immediate advantage test is too restrictive and should be altered. The Job Skills Development Act eases the restrictions on volunteer activities without jeapordizing the important safeguards against employer coercion and worker displacement. These changes will help recent college graduates and individuals who have been out of the work force develop professional skills and gain experience. Today, individuals face many obstacles in landing good jobs. Unfortunately, the FLSA imposes unnecessary burdens on ambitious individuals. Allowing businesses to provide opportunities for volunteers will benefit both employers and individuals attempting to break into a crowded job field. Capitol Hill provides an excellent example of the benefits of allowing individuals to volunteer their services to employers. Young individuals participating in unpaid congressional internships gain a better understanding of the legislative process, develop office skills and make contacts that are invaluable in securing employment. In my Washington office, six of my eight employees were unpaid interns before landing jobs on Capitol Hill. Two of my staffers volunteered in my office for several months before they were hired on as full-time paid employees. Both of these individuals have been promoted twice during the last year. Because these two staffers were recent college graduates and produced work that benefited my office during their internships, they would have been prohibited from volunteering their services if I would have been forced to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. On the opening day of the 104th Congress, we passed legislation that brings Accountability Act exempts interns from the employer-employee relationship covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Speaker, Congress should give individuals attempting to gain competitive private sector jobs the same opportunities that individuals wishing to work on Capitol Hill have enjoyed for years. I urge my colleagues to support the Job Skills Development Act of 1995.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Republican Party passed the last hurdle in the Contract With America by passing our tax reduction package. We provide families a $500 per child tax credit, we slash the capital gains tax rate, repeal the Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits, double an investment deduction for small businesses, provide a tax credit to families who adopt children, and create the American dream savings account to encourage saving. In the last 92 days we kept our word with the American people. We changed Washington and we have worked hard to preserve the American Dream for America's children. The contract is only the first step, however, toward moving power and money out of Washington and returning it to the people. Henry Ford said that, ``What's right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great capacity-- intellectual and resources--to do something about them.'' I am proud to say that this new Congress is changing America and helping to restore its greatness.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the previous speaker that it was Senator Carol Moseley-Braun who was primarily responsible for that whole matter. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the Democratic majority in the House muscled through the largest tax increase in U.S. history without one Republican vote. Buried deep in tax language, the Democrats even included a cut in Social Security benefits for senior citizens. That's right, every senior citizen making $34,000 is rich according to the Democrats definition and guess what? They all got a cut in 1993. I am proud to say that tomorrow we will restore Social Security benefits to their prior level and lessen the squeeze on the middle class. Instead of finding clever ways to take more money from our senior citizens and middle-class Americans--we are restoring benefits, lowering taxes, encouraging investment and savings, and letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned money. I have a question for my Democratic colleagues. Can you justify the current tax burden on our senior citizens? Can you justify the tax burden on working families? If the answer is no, then support our tax reduction package.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. The Democratic propaganda machine is working overtime this week trying to convince the American people that the Republican tax reduction package is reserved only for the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is time to tell the truth about our tax cuts and let the American people know that if they used the Democrats calculations of ``income'' and ``rich'' they would have a lot more work to do on their 1040 tax forms this year. The Democratic leadership inflates your income by adding all sorts of things you and I would never dream of including: Social Security contributions, AFDC payments, employer-provided benefits like health care and pension contributions, capital gains on assets you still own, and they even include in your income what your net return would be if you rented the house you live in at market value. This manipulation of income is a gross distortion of family income and to those struggling to make ends meet it just does not add up. It is no wonder the American people think Washington is out of touch with the rest of America. Mr. Speaker, we need tax relief but we need an honest presentation of the facts.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, polls estimate, as everybody knows, that 80 percent of Americans support term limits. Yet I know there are some Republicans who do not, but there are some Democrats who, frankly, oppose, and have actively done so, for some time. Frustrated by 40 years of Democratic inaction and blatant obstruction to term limits, the American people were forced to take this battle to the ballot box, State by State, in a grassroots effort to circumvent an arrogant Congress that thought it knew better than those people it represented. The makeup of today's Congress is very different, in large part because of the term-limit movement. The new majority believes the people have a right to be heard, and that is why this GOP-led Congress is bringing a historic first ever vote on term limits to the floor of the House today. For those Democrats sitting on the fence on term limits, just talking about those on the fence, look back at last year's election. Many of your colleagues who fought against the will of the people, about 35 of them, are not here. They are now watching this debate as observers instead of Members of Congress. The way I see it, we either get your vote on term limits today or we will get your seat in 1996. Think about it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, this week for the first time in history, we will vote to limit the number of terms Members of Congress can serve. The new, open, GOP Congress will bring not one, not two, not three, but four term limit proposals to the floor for a first-ever vote to replace career politicians with citizen legislators and return the balance of power back to the people. Republicans are committed to term limits but, alone we can not give the overwhelming majority of Americans what they want--we need the support and votes from our Democratic colleagues. Even if all 230 Republicans vote for term limits, we would still need 60 Democrats in order to pass this constitutional amendment. So, today the fate of term limits and the will of the American people rest in your hands [pointing towards Democrats]. It is up to you to either join our effort to return the people's body to the people and pass a term limits amendment--or--to fight for the status quo of congressional careerism and the influence of high-powered, Washington lobbyists. Mr. Speaker, it is time to put partisan politics aside and give America what 22 States have already demanded: term limits.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the Personal Responsibility Act. This bill releases the welfare trap by empowering recipients to take charge of their lives and work their way off welfare. The current system provides little incentive for individuals to work. As a result, only 20,000 individuals on AFDC are working in paid jobs. By rewarding recipients who remain idle and punishing those who try to lift themselves out of poverty, the current welfare system is trapping families in a life of dependency. It is wrong to deprive individuals the dignity of work. The Personal Responsibility Act promotes work and requires able-bodied adults to work in exchange for their benefits. By 1998, one parent in at least 90 percent of two-parent AFDC families will be required to work. By the year 2000, 2 million single AFDC parents will be working. The Republican welfare bill embodies the principles that make our Nation strong and provides hope, opportunity, and independence to those unfortunate Americans trapped in the current system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the rescissions bill before us today. There is nothing like a rescission bill to get the Washington special interest lobbying machine cranking. I have a stack of letters and faxes in my office from people who are opposed to this bill. They all say something like this: ``I know we have to cut spending, but please save this or that program because it costs so little and helps so many people.'' from the Clinton administration which say that children will starve-- senior citizens will be thrown out on the streets--and businesses will cease to be competitive if we cut this or that program. But you know what? I have yet to receive a letter from someone who says, ``I don't have any ties to these programs. I do not receive my salary from them. I do not receive other monetary benefit from them, but I think you should continue to fund them anyway.''--not a single one. Folks, the American people are not buying into the ratings of Washington's spendoholics. They know that a nation's compassion is not measured by the amount of money it spends. They know that the effectiveness of government programs cannot be judged solely by the goodness of their names or their intentions. Above all, they know that the most compassionate thing this Congress can do is lift the heavy burden of government debt off the back of their kids and grandkids. So Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues: Listen closely to the arguments against this bill. You will find the pleadings for compassion have the hollow ring of self-interest. Then, remember the silent majority. Remember the Americans who pay the bills and their children and grandchildren who will pay them for decades to come. And cast your votes for them.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities for yielding. I especially want to thank him not just for his leadership this year but for a countless number of years. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has lived the life that many of us do not have or did not have the opportunity to do in terms of looking over the lunch programs from a perspective of a couple of feet. Most of us get most of our information from a book, a newspaper, from a pamphlet, from charts, information such as this. I want to talk with my colleagues for a moment about the school-based child care block grant contained in the House Republican welfare bill. It has been subjected to vicious attacks by the White House and other defenders of the status quo, and I say defenders of government bureaucracy, of Federal bureaucracy. I appreciate this opportunity to take just a moment and, with my colleagues, tell the truth about the House Republican welfare bill. I believe for the last few weeks, the American people have been deceived. Some would say maybe more strongly they have been lied to. But the Democratic Party, some of those who preceded us here this evening, have distorted the facts and attempted to use children to promote the political agenda, and one by one they have paraded out on the House floor to tell the story, make the claims that House Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of children. I have to say that nothing could be further from the truth. The House Republican welfare bill actually expands the Federal commitment to child nutrition. I will admit, maybe our block grants are a bad deal for Washington bureaucrats. But they are a great deal for the local administrators of school lunches who no longer will have to wade through tons of redtape to provide nutritious meals to schoolchildren. I would like to reaffirm what has already been brought out this evening that I would like to inform the American people and reaffirm that our proposal, the Republican proposal, increases funding for school lunches, as has been said, by 4.5 percent each year. The other thing that is important, I think, to remember is that the total Federal funding for the school-based nutrition block grant over 5 years is real money. It is $36 billion, and despite this strong commitment to school-based food programs, Democrats are trying to convince the American people that the Republican Party has turned its back on the poor, and I think it is time the American people know the truth. The school-based nutrition block grant proposed by the party, by the Republican Party, will greatly improve the way we provide school meals to needy children. It returns decisionmaking back home and removes the one-size-fits-all mandates that will allow States to provide nutritious meals to kids. Now, one of the things that I really do not understand is why the Democratic Party, certain members, are so distrustful of the States. The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on compassion and, contrary to popular belief in this body by some, Congress does not have all the answers, not all of the answers to our Nation's problems. Governors and State lawmakers also have concerns about the well-being of children, and they live closer to the fact, to those children. They have a direct interest in promoting the health and development of the children in their States. They are not going to walk away from those responsibilities. Just yesterday I had a chance to talk to the Governor of my State, Governor Engler, from Michigan. He is excited about this new majority in the House of Representatives. He is excited because they are willing to give him the flexibility that he wants and needs to design and craft some of the innovative solutions that will make a big difference, a positive difference, in the lives of those persons that are trapped in the current welfare system. He understands, and he assured me that he and the other Governors understand, that there is importance in providing nutritious school meals, and they do not want to shortchange the kids. I truly believe that the States can do a better job with welfare reform, that welfare reform over and above what the Federal Government has done, and the House Republican welfare bill will encourage creativity at the State level instead of stifling it, and as a result, I am confident that we have offered a positive alternative to the current wasteful welfare system. I urge the American people to search out the truth, listen to both sides. I believe that you will find there is no reason that you have to be lied to, to be deceived. In closing, I just would like to reaffirm, restate, and it has been stated several times, but I do not think it hurts to drum it a few more times, the Republican bill increases funding for school lunches by 4.5 percent per year. By the year 2000, we will be spending $1 billion more on school lunches than we spend today. We are not taking the food from the mouths of hungry children. We are streamlining the administrative costs and allowing more money to be spent on lunches instead of paper, paper-shuffling. So I think it is time, and I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, that you have taken the leadership again to promote the facts that should be aired so that the American people can sort through the rhetoric and look at truly what is in this welfare bill, this child block grant bill and, frankly, I say again it is shameful that individuals would use children as political props. I thank you for yielding, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a new version of Robin Hood displayed by the Democrats this week. They want to ``take as much as possible from hard working families and give to the bureaucrats in Washington, DC.'' Minority Leader Gephardt even called the Republican proposal to give a $500 per child tax credit to families ``an appalling display of Republican indifference to working people.'' This tax credit will benefit approximately 50 million families--90 percent of whom earn less than $75,000 a year. Yet the minority party claims this is bad for working families. Whose family would be worse off today with an additional $1,000 to help make ends meet? Whose family would be worse off with $1,000 to start a college education fund for their children? Whose family would be worse off with more of their own hard-earned money? Mr. Speaker, it is time we start cutting bureaucracy here in Washington, DC, and returning control and money to American families. Despite what the minority party claims, the $500 per child tax credit is good for all working families and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the other body will cast its most important vote to date on the balanced budget amendment. Only a balanced budget amendment can provide the discipline to end deficit spending, shrink the Government, and reduce the burden on American families to shoulder the national debt for generations to come. The balanced budget amendment is still one vote short as President Clinton and the other guardians of big government are doing everything within their power to kill it. The fact of the matter is that many Members of Congress and the President have absolutely no intention of ever balancing the budget. They seem to be content with ongoing $200 billion deficits and the intrusion of big government into the daily lives of American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, there is a fork in the road and the paths are clear. One leads to more of the same, deficits and higher taxes. The other leads toward the replacement of the welfare state with an opportunity society that understands that power emanates from people, not from government. The choice is clear. I urge all my colleagues in the other body to move this country in the right direction.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Mr. Durbin to include other European countries along with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, for NATO membership in the future. In particular I support restoring the eligibility of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as Ukraine to join NATO when they are able to meet the necessary requirements. Since their independence from the Soviet Union, these nations have been working diligently to rebuild internally and establish democratic and free governments. By reaching out to the West, the Baltic states have been striving to develop peaceful relations throughout the global community. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine cannot ignore their neighbor to the east, the Russian Federation. We too cannot help but realize that Russia continues to present a potential threat to these countries. Certainly we all can see that the instability and actions of Russia have heightened tensions within its neighbors who remember all too clearly the history of the past 70 years. In its current form H.R. 7 sends a message to these nations of Central and Eastern Europe that they are on their own in security matters. This is a message we surely do not mean and one we cannot risk sending. It threatens to destabilize this region through the implication that NATO expansion would be limited to the four named countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Certainly we should not imply that consideration of NATO membership will be limited to just these four countries. When the Baltic states or Ukraine meet the appropriate requirements they should be permitted to, at the least, be considered for NATO membership. The Durbin amendment resolves this problem in a fair and suitable manner. This language making numerous Central and Eastern European countries eligible for consideration in future NATO expansion extends the same criteria for NATO integration to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Republicans kept another promise we made to the American people in our Contract With America. We governments the resources and flexibility to effectively fight crime in their communities and take violent criminals off the street. Today, we bring H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act, to the floor which addresses the military and defense policies of this Nation. Under President Clinton, we have seen a drift in our foreign policy coupled with a dangerous decline in our military capability. And while the buck used to stop at the Oval Office, we have seen it passed more and more frequently to foreign command. A tragic example of this leadership void ended in the death of American soldiers on the streets of Mogadishu. Today, we offer a bill that will put limits on placing U.S. troops under U.N. command and it will require prior authorization by Congress, before American troops are used in U.N.-organized nation building operations. Mr. Speaker, while the President continues to pass the buck, our young men and women of the armed services end up paying the price. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, last week Congressman Kolbe and I introduced the Common Sense Welfare Reform Act. The American people are frustrated with dependency-fostering federal welfare programs. They realize that the War on Poverty has failed and are demanding real welfare reform. Our bill turns the reins of welfare reform over to the people who pay the Federal Government's bills--the American taxpayers. We would allow each American to direct up to ten percent of their Federal taxes to charities engaged in fighting poverty instead of sending that money to Washington. determine how their welfare dollars are spent will spur interest in antipoverty efforts and enhance the role of private charities. Replacing traditional self-help networks with Government checks has failed. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Federal Government to step aside and allow caring individuals and community based organizations to begin attacking poverty in a meaningful way. I urge my colleagues to take another bold step to change the way Government works and to cosponsor the Common Sense Welfare Reform Act.