John W. Olver: “Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised by the argument that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is making here.…”

“Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised by the argument that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is making here. The proviso is precisely the same proviso that was in the VA-HUD bill, and the amendment, as I have offered it, is precisely equivalent to the amendment that was offered and voted 314 to 108 last week. The only difference is that the proviso as it was on the VA-HUD bill applied to only one title of the bill, whereas this proviso now applies as a general provision to every title of this bill. And, therefore, the only thing that has been removed from this amendment is the particular application to the EPA title of the bill which, of course, would not make any sense in a piece of legislation that deals with Commerce and with the State Department and with the Judiciary and with the Justice Department. So, I really do not understand where there is any difference in the import here.”