Michael Doyle

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask the gentleman, he likes to quote the Cato Institute report a lot and says that these are contributors to Democratic causes. Only five of the corporations, AT&T, Boeing, Chevron, Shell and Texaco, received ATP awards, and each of those companies gave more heavily to Republicans than they gave to Democrats. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman too about corporate welfare that he supports like the National Weather Service, NIST in- house R&D, energy supply R&D, FAA, S&T. The Cato Institute defines all of this as corporate welfare. If the gentleman is agreeing with Cato's definition that corporate welfare is any program that involves government cooperation with industry, then why is the gentleman supporting hydrogen R&D, which he supports? Is that not corporate welfare?

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, that is the report the gentleman cited.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know it is getting late, and I am not going to take a lot of time. I just think it is interesting to note that, while the chairman of the Committee on Science likes to talk about Boeing receiving $2 million on the ATP program and labels that corporate welfare, he conveniently overlooks the $6 billion contract Boeing gets on the Space Station, which he supports. So I think there is just a little bit of a double standard going on here. There is some corporate welfare apparently that is good, and then there is other corporate welfare that is not so good. I would say to the gentlewoman from Maryland that we support MEP. All of us over here support that program, and we have tried to work in a bipartisan way to make sure what is clearly a success story continues. I would like to see the MEP program funded at $105 million, at full funding. I would like to see other areas have MEP centers, like I enjoy in western Pennsylvania. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, I believe, has saved the manufacturing base in Pittsburgh and is a program that not only needs to continue but should be expanded because it is doing good things, too. Similar good things have been happening in the ATP program, and I think it is interesting to note that, when we held hearings on ATP, most of these so-called expert witnesses that were presented were not from members from the private sector or from industry. They were these so-called experts from these inside-the-Beltway think tanks that talked negatively about this program. Every private sector, every company representative, even those that did not receive ATP awards, spoke favorably about this program. So I think, if we were serious about addressing this issue of so-called corporate welfare, that we would have done it in a much more substantial way rather than the very narrow focus that the chairman has taken in this program. In closing, I think the Brown amendment is a far superior amendment because it takes care of two programs that are a success story. We do support the MEP program and certainly are going to support funding for that. Certain elements within the Science Committee have tried to bury NIST's technology and manufacturing support programs without ever having to endure the political inconvenience of debating their merits or voting on the record to kill them. Our amendment is designed to correct this situation and allow flexibility for the Appropriations Committee to find funding for these supposedly controversial programs. What are the functions of these disputed programs? First, let's look at NIST's Manufacturing Extension Program. The MEP, which originated during the Reagan administration, has been a salvation to many American small manufacturing businesses. Faced with increasing direct global competition in the mid-1980's, small American manufacturers needed to become more efficient, but objective sources of modernization advice were costly or nonexistent. Abroad, countries like Japan, Germany, Singapore, and Italy all launched manufacturing extension programs to help their small manufacturers innovate, renovate, and compete. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership program [MEP] was NIST's response to the efforts of our global competitors to seize control of the international market for technology. The MEP demonstrates that the Federal Government, in partnership with local business groups, educational institutions, and State governments, could provide small manufacturers with modernization services worth several times the Federal investment. Today, the MEP program serves 32 States through a network of 44 nonprofit centers. Federal funds are awarded on a competitive basis with States and local partners matching Federal funds. Each MEP center is tailored to meet the needs of regional industries by assisting small and medium size firms employing fewer than 500 workers--381,000 manufacturers employing 12 million workers--to modernize in order to compete in the demanding marketplace of the 1990's and beyond. To date, MEP centers have reached 25,000 customer firms. Each MEP project on average adds or saves 5 jobs, increases sales by $360,000 and saves $430,000 in labor and investments. Total benefits to manufacturers amount to $8 for every Federal dollar invested. The MEP in my region, SPIRC, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, has made meaningful improvements in numerous manufacturing plants throughout Allegheny County. It's safe to say SPIRC is directly responsible for maintaining our manufacturing base in western Pennsylvania. The MEP program's benefits have been widely recognized. The House and Senate have agreed on language that was included in the debt ceiling extension bill reaffirming the importance of MEP centers in helping business comply with Federal and State-level environmental regulations. The language reads, Nothing in this Act in any way affects or limits the ability of other technical assistance or extension programs to perform or continue to perform services related to compliance assistance. This clearly covers current MEP activities, which provide significant environmental assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers. This has been a recent point of emphasis within the MEP program. For example, the Tennessee MEP Center was awarded $900,000 to develop a prototype program for environmental compliance that can be emulated by other MEP centers. Let's also look at another Reagan administration effort, the Advanced Technology Program, which addressed another market failure. Technology partnership programs, such as ATP, were crafted in direct response to the concern that too much of the scientific knowledge resulting from research projects was not finding its way into our companies, where technology could be turned into the products and services, the profits and jobs that drive our economy. Many factors, including the globalization of markets, the rapid pace of technology cycles, and the focus on short term investment, have led to the short term and narrow R&D focus in most companies. As a result, U.S. industry tends to avoid investments in enabling technologies with broad economic benefits, and focuses almost exclusively on narrow mission-specific research with short horizons. Technology partnerships were conceived as a means to create some bridges to better connect basic research with the companies who can move ideas into the marketplace. The ATP, based on previous Government experience in fostering technology transfer, is a cost-shared partnership between Government, industry, and universities. With funding of $341 million in fiscal year 1995, it represented less than 1 percent of total Federal civilian R&D investment. It is too early to determine the full economic benefits from a program like ATP, which began in 1990, but has at least a 10- year horizon for payoff. Already, there is substantial evidence that the ATP is catalyzing unique, new enabling technologies and thereby creating new economic opportunities that would not have existed otherwise. Also, I want to mention that in spirit of bipartisan cooperation, Congressman Boehlert and I circulated a letter of support for MEP. Well over 90 Members signed onto this letter, including such notable Members as Congressman Hastert, the majority's chief deputy whip, Chairman Spence of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Meyers of the Small Business Committee, and many others. I have a copy of the letter here, which I hope Members will look at before voting. Thanks to more thoughtful consideration of these programs than that of the Science Committee, Congress provided adequate funding for the NIST laboratories and provided subsistence funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Unfortunately, funding for the Advanced Technology Program was eliminated for fiscal year 1996. Authorization levels for the MEP and the ATP were not the result of any objective analysis of the merits of these programs, but were based solely on political considerations. From the beginning days of the 104th Congress, both the MEP and ATP programs were targeted as corporate welfare by certain Members. What is the basis for my assertion that the attacks made on the ATP and MEP are political rather than any rational evaluation of the program? In a hearing before the Technology Subcommittee this past year, the only witness who spoke against the ATP and MEP were expert witnesses with no technical business background--their only experience was working for inside the beltway think tanks. Every other private sector witness supported these programs and programs like them, regardless of whether their company received an ATP award. According to a July 1995 Congressional Budget Office [CBO] report, Federal Financial Support of Business, the ATP and MEP represent less than 4 percent of the $12 billion the Federal Government will spend on programs that support industrial technology commercialization. If the cities of these programs were truly interested in rooting out this so- called corporate welfare, why are they silent regarding the majority of programs, such as the almost $1 billion Small Business Innovation Research Program [SBIR], or $3.7 billion at the National Institutes of Health [NIH] for applied biomedical research? If they were serious, we would be debating the entire range of technology commercialization programs which the Government funds. The Science Committee has not done this and the House has not done this. The elimination of the ATP and attempts to eliminate the MEP are using the corporate welfare label to further another agenda. To be frank, the ATP and MEP were targeted, despite their initiation by a Republican administration, because they were enthusiastically endorsed by Bill Clinton--both as a candidate and as President. Eliminating ATP and MEP does not mean that Congress is making hard choices, it says Congress is making political ones. Rather than listening to the experts and building a Federal investment S&T that is based in economic reality and looks to the future, opponents of these programs have only used rhetorical arguments as justification for attacking the ATP and MEP for purely political reasons. I want to emphasize that until this Congress the question of support for MEP and ATP has not been partisan. It is the effort to make this a partisan debate that many of us on both sides of the aisle are working to counter. Even in the mark-up of this bill, Members of both parties supported this amendment, which failed on a tie vote. I have the utmost respect for my colleagues in the majority who have not succumbed to the misguided effort to handicap our competitiveness.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute. I do so for many reasons. The underlying bill is based upon a false premise and is basically an abdication of Federal participation in research and development. When I came to Congress I wanted to serve on the Science Committee because I recognize that, in addition to regulatory reform and balancing the budget, we need a sound research and development policy to achieve economic security. I can not begin to describe my disappointment over the way the Science Committee dealt with its authorization. Basically, we have abandoned any debate over policy in favor or partisanship. You will hear much rhetoric about how much the Science Committee contributed towards balancing the budget. The truth is that our committee was presented with alternative budgets for most of our accounts, all of which fell within the constraints of a balanced budget plan--the one put forward by the Senate Budget Committee, and here in the House by the coalition. Were these considered on their merits? No. Instead, Members were told that there was only one vision, the vision the chairman put forward about how much each Appropriations subcommittee 602(b) allocations would be dedicated to our accounts. This was not reality, and a further examination shows the fiscal year 1996 budget eventually turned out to be very much like the levels of the alternative proposals that had been based on balanced budgets put forward by both parties. Since last year's omnibus science bill did not accomplish much, we tried a different approach this year. What kind of improvements did we make? Well, the two most noticeable changes are that we skipped subcommittee markup, and also that we decided to consider a number of our programs outside Science Committee jurisdiction, while ignoring some major responsibilities. The Brown substitute is a much more realistic approach to meeting our Nation's research and development needs while still maintaining our commitment to a balanced budget. It is a vast improvement over the underlying bill in numerous ways, but the one I want to focus on is it includes something the manager's amendment does not--a title covering the Department of Energy's research and development programs. Last October, when the House considered H.R. 2405, an amendment offered by Chairman Walker was adopted which raised authorization levels for fiscal year 1996 to meet the previously appropriated level, but also set fiscal year 1997 levels. This amendment was clear evidence of how irrelevant the Science Committee has been in the area of energy research. The fiscal year 1996 levels in the Walker amendment merely reflected what the appropriations had already done with these programs, and the fiscal year 1997 levels were not the result of Science Committee action. In the debate action over the inclusion of fiscal year 1997 authorization in the Walker amendment, Science Committee Chairman Walker stated, ``I never contended that I brought this matter before the committee. I brought it to the floor as my own amendment.'' Since the House acted on H.R. 2405, there have been several developments which warrant reconsideration of these numbers. For instance, the Congressional Budget Office has revised its economic assumptions, resulting in greater flexibility in making discretionary spending decisions. Also, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee has held a series of hearings on energy research and development, which have proven to be very helpful in our ability to judge the value of the various programs in question. While I am grateful to Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher for scheduling these hearings, they will be for nothing if the committee is unable to act on this hearing record in a timely manner. The need to revisit DOE R&D funding is apparently shared by Chairman Walker and Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher, who, when we marked up the bill we have here today, publicly pledged their willingness to move a fiscal year 1997 DOE R&D authorization bill. While I supported this approach, it is now becoming apparent that the markup of a separate DOE authorization will occur too late to influence this year's process. 1730 Mr. Chairman, a previous colleague of mine asked the question where is the beef. In western Pennsylvania, we would say this bill is all foam and no beer. Member's who are concerned about our energy security, and what we are doing to further it, should support the Brown substitute. Leaving it up to appropriators or the other body is not a responsible way to represent your constituents.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, although I anticipate much partisanship in the debate over H.R. 3322, I want to point out that the National Science Foundation enjoys strong bipartisan support. I want to thank Basic Research Subcommittee Chairman Schiff for the professional, nonpartisan manner in which he has conducted himself on all matters within Basic Research's jurisdiction, including the NSF. On the NSF budget generally, I hope that we will continue to maintain our history of bipartisan advocacy. The support that NSF provides in meeting a wide variety of challenges in math, science, and engineering education cannot be overstated. In my region, both Carnegie-Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh rely heavily on NSF support to conduct important research in a number of areas. What concerns me enough to rise at this point, is the future of NSF's Supercomputing Program. The Basic Research Subcommittee has held two hearings relating to the Supercomputing Program, one on the high performance computing and communications initiative in general, and one on NSF's decision to recompete its Supercomputing Program. The common theme in these two hearings was that we are letting funding issues compromise the integrity of what has been recognized by Members in both parties as a model program. What especially disturbs me is NSF's decision to ``recompete'' its leading edge centers based upon the findings of the Hayes Report. The Hayes Report found that there needed to be greater emphasis placed on regional computing centers in order to ease the extreme burden being placed on the four leading-edge centers. I agree that the best way to help meet the demands for user time at the leading-edge centers is to increase the capabilities of the regional centers. If there are projects that require less capacity, or the merits of larger projects can be initially judged at the regional centers, then we should pursue it. What troubles me is that the only way anyone has chosen to enhance the regional centers is at the expense of the leading-edge centers. In other words, NSF has decided that the way to solve one problem is to create another, potentially more serious problem. We are confronted with a situation where, in order to enhance the ability to access a valuable research tool, we are going to reduce that tool's capacity. I know that this situation is of concern to Members on both sides of the aisle. During the hearing on the Supercomputing Program there were many Members in both parties who said that if money was the only force driving the downsizing of leading-edge centers, then we should find the money elsewhere and not deconstruct one of our Government's greatest success stories. I do not take issue with formalizing the relationships between leading-edge and regional facilities through the proposed partnership centers. However, witnesses at our hearing seemed quite clear that there was nothing about the reorganization that was leading to a potential downsizing of leading-edge centers. Rather, it was budgetary concerns that were driving this process. In response to a question posed by Congressman Boehlert, Dr. Ed Hayes, chairman of the task force on the Future of NSF Supercomputing Centers, stated: The concern is that . . . if these [Partnership] centers come into being and the NSF budget did not grow at a rate significantly above inflation for this program, you would not be able to keep up with the recapitalization cycle that would be necessary to keep the leading-edge sites at a level that would be sufficiently interesting to draw the very best researchers . . . Later, in response to a question I posed about why we were considering downsizing centers that were over subscribed, Dr. Hayes said: And if the NSF budget would support, with the recapitalization I mentioned earlier, more than the minimum of two [Partnership Centers] that we were strongly pushing for, then within the concept of the partnership I think there will be quite a comfort level and enthusiasm for doing that. Despite the assertions of NSF that funding is not the issue here, our committee's hearing record seems to indicate otherwise. Rather, it seems to me that the recompetition is based upon NSF trying to predict future funding decisions by the Congress. In this case, it seems like the analysis of the task force was done correctly, but they then went beyond the scope of their mission by presupposing future funding decisions by Congress. My admonition to the NSF is not to base policy decisions by guessing how the Science Committee is going to act. As we just witnessed with the Schiff amendment, preordained authorization caps have a way of changing around here. If current funding for the Supercomputing Program is not sufficient to keep the United States as a world leader in high- speed computing, let us know, and we will act accordingly. I do not intend to offer an amendment at this point. But I do want to put the NSF on notice that there are many Members of Congress who are watching the recompetition with a watchful eye, and are not necessarily pleased with what they have seen so far.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. DOYLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, since we just completed consideration of the U.S. Housing Act, I believe it is appropriate that I rise this evening to discuss a public housing issue that is now being played out in western Pennsylvania. In the suburban communities of Pittsburgh, which I represent in Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, county housing authority, county government, and lawyers representing plaintiffs from a 1988 lawsuit are in the process of implementing a plan to provide public housing for those plaintiffs. And, while I am sure that lawyers could argue the merits of this case for days on end, my dispute is with the manner in which the implementation is being conducted. In the last year, when decisions were made to purchase single-family houses in seven municipalities within two school districts, the elected officials and residents of these municipalities were not informed and not consulted. The first word of this plan to purchase single-family houses in six communities out of 100 eligible communities in Allegheny County, was this undated form letter notifying them that houses in their communities would be purchased for section 8 housing. I became involved when the mayors of these affected communities wondered why they had not been brought into the decisionmaking process until it was too late, and then only for appearances. They were at a loss for what could be done about HUD forcing its will on their citizens. I suggested that they form an intermunicipal working group and offer an alternative plan to the proposal by the parties of the consent decree. There are three basic problems with the path HUD is taking in my district: The lack of community notification and participation, the concentrated loss of tax revenues to the municipalities and school districts, and the extravagant use of taxpayer funds to provide public housing. First, HUD has shown little interest in communicating with local officials during the decisionmaking process. HUD, and the other parties to this consent decree, deliberately contrived to purchase houses using national guidelines in an original price range between $74,500 and $104,500 for a single unit of housing. When asked only as recently as last week, the communities, where six of the homes were to be purchased, provided lists of more reasonably priced houses as alternatives for purchase. The community leaders are making a good faith effort that is certainly more of a commonsense approach. By concentrating the first 18 of these 23 house purchases in three communities, the tax revenue losses due to the tax exemptions for section 8 housing were directed unfairly at a relatively small number of communities and only one school district. We proposed that the scattered-site distribution be made throughout a wider geographic area so any revenue losses would be a burden shared fairly among the entire region. After all, the consent decree calls for the public housing to be located throughout Allegheny County, not just a limited portion of the county. And that brings me to the third area that HUD disregarded in its implementation. By purchasing less expensive houses, the tax revenue losses would be more bearable by the local governments and this would be a fair way to treat the citizens who already live in those communities. The case concluded with a judge's consent decree which requires HUD to acquire 100 units of public housing within Allegheny County to be maintained by the county's housing authority. This still left open the question of how the decree would be implemented. After the judge's ruling in December 1994, the parties involved in the lawsuit began making implementation plans, but they did not ask for any input from the communities involved. Some time before this past December, HUD decided that it would purchase 23 scattered-site single family houses in a small number of communities to begin implementing the decree. My observation is that there is a right way and a wrong way to implement such a consent decree. HUD and the others involved in this case have taken the wrong path and should go back and start over. On Tuesday, HUD closed purchases on five of six houses, with prices of $57,500, $67,000, $73,000, $76,000, and $76,595. The people in these communities work hard to have homes and some work two and three jobs to pay for them. Most of the people who live in these communities cannot afford to buy homes at those prices. What kind of a message is HUD sending when they use $2.6 million of the taxpayers' funds to purchase 23 houses in 7 communities? Is this wise use of Federal funds? I don't think so. Along with the local elected officials, I recommended that HUD help revitalize the housing stock in these communities by purchasing starter homes--homes that could be purchased for much less, and upgraded to improve the housing stock in those communities. This would be a win-win proposal and a commonsense approach to the problem. I discussed this entire fiasco with Secretary Henry Cisneros recently and I thank him for listening. Now, I want him to act. This week I wrote this letter asking him to place the houses that HUD purchased this week back on the market. HUD needs to start over. And I am asking that he use the guidelines I just explained to implement the consent decree. If HUD is willing to purchase less expensive starter houses across a larger number of the 100 eligible communities and work with the community leaders to identify such properties, then we will solve this implementation challenge. We have been ready to offer alternatives and act in a cooperative spirit to assist HUD and the local housing authority in implementing this consent decree. During the recent debate on H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, I discussed this issue with the Appropriations VA/HUD Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis, and I have his assurance that he will work with me through the appropriations process to develop legislative language ensuring that this kind of reckless disregard for the communities and extravagant use of taxpayer dollars does not continue. Public policy on housing and on other local issues should be developed with public participation and by extending a hand of cooperation. We are prepared to cooperate and help create a better life for every citizen in western Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, whether in the national spotlight or in our hometown, attempts to derail law enforcement investigations and influence judicial decisions through coercion is increasingly becoming the criminal's preferred line of defense. No longer is the arm of intimidation restricting itself to organized crime. When individuals employ this type of behavior in a small or close knit community, the effect of the manipulation can literally freeze that neighborhood's sense of community in its tracks. When individuals successfully exercise intimidation in the courtroom, we are in danger of knowingly forfeiting an inalienable right; the right to a fair trial. I realize the limited effect deterrents such as the provisions of H.R. 3120 can have if they are not enforced. It is my hope however, that the message of H.R. 3120 will bolster law enforcement's efforts and will break through to individuals who might otherwise resort to witness and jury tampering tactics. It is also my hope that this legislation will sound a voice of support and encouragement to individuals who are a witness to, or victim of crime. In order for our communities to be safe environments, we must make it clear that every individual is equally important and deserves protection. An aware and involved resident is our best tool to preventing and combating crime. As a cosponsor of the original components of this bill, H.R. 1143, H.R. 1144, and H.R. 1145, I strongly believe that increasing the maximum sentence for individuals convicted of tempering or harassing juries and witnesses in criminal cases is a reasonable and just response to such actions. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of H.R. 3120, the Increased Punishment for Witness and Jury Tampering Act.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, I rise today to urge my colleagues to view this legislation not solely as a transportation issue, but as an issue on tax fairness. The Truth in Budgeting Act would move our Federal transportation trust funds off budget, separate from the Federal unified budget. Currently, with these funds ``on-budget'' the surpluses are used to mask a portion of our true budget deficit which prevents these funds from being used in the manner they were intended. During this time of severe budgetary pressure, it is critical for State and local governments to receive general funding support, and should benefit equitable from the transportation taxes-user fees they send to Washington to be used for transportation purposes. As I have the privilege to represent the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, I can most assuredly tell you that my constituents are concerned about funding for vital transportation projects in the southwestern part of our State. Many of you are probably familiar with the equipment problems the towers at the Pittsburgh International Airport have been experiencing. Along with the FAA Revitalization Act, H.R. 2276, this bill will help to ensure that such incidents of grave public and transportation safety will receive the urgent response they demand. The Truth in Budgeting Act would also enhance our communitys' abilities to plan important infrastructure investments and complete transportation projects. A community's mobility is a measure of its quality of life and the competitiveness of its economy. The efficient, cost effective movement of people and goods is vital for individuals and for the businesses that contribute and bolster our Nation's economy. The decline of the industrial corridor of southwestern Pennsylvania in the 1980's has been well documented. The loss of employment opportunities effected nearly one-half million people from the Mon Valley. A decade later, there remains a significant amount of work to be done to combat this economic devastation. The Mon Valley Expressway would for the first time provide this region physical and economic access to Pittsburgh. I am confident that the Mon Valley Expressway will prove to be as much of an infrastructure and economic success as I-279, and the East and West Parkways. We cannot afford to not complete economically rejuvenating projects such as the Mon Valley Expressway. As an advocate of capital budgeting and economic development, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 175th anniversary of the independence of the nation of Greece. The significance of the Greek War of Independence goes well beyond the scope of Greece and its history, and beyond even the history of the entire region encompassing the Balkan peninsula and the eastern Mediterranean. The struggle of the Greek people was the first major war of liberation following the American Revolution; it was the first successful war for independence from the Ottoman Empire; and it was the first explicitly nationalist revolution. It is generally recognized that the Greek War of Independence began in earnest on March 25, 1821, when Bishop Germanos of Patra raised the standard of rebellion at the monastery of Aghia Lavra in the northern Peloponnese. This incident represented the joining together of lay and secular forces in outright rebellion to Ottoman domination. As evidence of the commitment to democracy as an underpinning of this struggle, the first National Assembly was convened at Epidaurus by the end of 1821. By taking action to develop a representative legislature at the earliest stages of revolution, well before victory was achieved in 1832, the broad coalition of forces striving for Greek independence recognized that a modern political state must be based on a framework which seeks to include those from all walks of life. In looking at Greece today, one can see how the character of the Greek War of Independence has added to the success of the modern state of Greece. Throughout the twentieth century, Greece has stood strong, first in the face of imperialism during World War I, then against the fascist incursion of the Axis powers during World War II, and finally in facing down the Communist threat during the cold war. Today, Greece stands firm as a bulwark of stability in an otherwise volatile region. The shared victory of western democracies in defeating communism would not have been possible without the dedicated participation of Greece. Also, as Americans, we must continue to recognize the pivotal role played by Greece in meeting our goal of maintaining and enhancing the economic and politically stability of Europe and the Mediterranean. Again, I congratulate the people of Greece on 175 years of independence and salute their ongoing positive contribution to peace and democracy throughout the world.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2276, the FAA Revitalization Act. This bill illustrates that viable, productive solutions can be achieved when both parties examine an issue thoughtfully and approach reform reasonably. In my view, H.R. 2276 serves both to increase the safety of air travel while protecting the rights and needs of air traffic personnel. Recent events at the Pittsburgh International Airport near my district in western Pennsylvania showcase the difficulties which can inhibit maintaining a high degree of air traffic safety in our country. The development of a new procurement system will help to ensure that air traffic personnel obtain proper safety equipment in a more timely manner. The reduction of the often overwhelmingly burdensome Federal procurement rules will increase safety effectiveness as well as guard against increased costs, waste, and abuse. As I am always concerned how legislation will affect the working men and women in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District, I am pleased that H.R. 2276 explicitly states that new FAA personnel systems would not be exempt from whistleblowers protection laws, laws prohibiting discrimination or strikes, workers and unemployment compensation, retirement, labor- management relations, and life and health insurance laws. The air traffic workers in my district support this legislation, and eagerly anticipate its enactment so that they will be able to maximize their ability to maintain the high level of air traffic safety that is absolutely necessary. I would like to conclude my remarks with words of encouragement for removing the Federal Airport and Airway Trust Fund from the unified Federal budget. As a cosponsor of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, I was disappointed to find that off-budget provisions were deleted from the final language of the bill. As a cosponsor, I encourage my colleagues to support final passage of H.R. 2276 today, and I look forward to debating the merits of H.R. 842 in the near future. Revitalizing the FAA will benefit travelers, air traffic personnel, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall safety of air travel.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of this Congress and the Nation, an effort that is taking place in my district and in places throughout the Nation. The National Daughters of the American Revolution dedicated this month, February, to be American history month. As the father of four young Americans who are 6, 14, 15, and 20 years of age, I value their education and appreciation regarding our family heritage as members of a larger family of Americans. My ancestors were of Irish and Italian decent and were immigrants who came to the United States for a new start, a bright future, and the successes that this Nation has offered persons from throughout the world. They greatly valued the elements that make our Nation the greatest in the world. Liberty, justice, and opportunity. They assimilated into the cultural mix of the Pittsburgh suburban way of life, worked hard, raised families, and found that their differences with their neighbors gave flavor to our American community. I have lived in that community all my life and have found a strength and truly American spirit, which is found in small and large places nationwide. I salute the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution for promoting awareness of American history and our national heritage this month. Generations of Americans from all walks of life and from all cultures have given their labor, their prayers, their very lives so that we might enjoy the fruits of democracy. I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to promote an interest by our youth in history this month and what this Nation means to all Americans.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I was in my district this weekend and I spoke with many people throughout western Pennsylvania who are upset with the budget impasse here in Washington. One of my constituents, Joe Palumbo, put it to me quite simply when he said--``Mike, why can't Republicans and Democrats, stop bickering and sit down together and work out their differences. It's a good question. Yesterday over 350 members of this House agreed to balance the budget in 7 years using the latest CBO economic assumptions. We agree on balancing the budget, now we have to decide on spending priorities. Let me ask three things of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican as an early Christmas present. First, let us tone down our rhetoric and listen to each other as well as talk. Second, let us respect each others concerns over tax cuts, Medicare, education, and other items as valid. And finally, let us not miss this historic opportunity to reach a compromise that will balance our budget in a fair and equitable way. Americans are counting on us.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Penn Hills High School Indians who won the 1995 Pennsylvania AAAA Varsity Football Championship. This past Saturday, December 9, at Altoona's Mansion Park Stadium, they defeated Lower Dauphin High School by a score of 35 to 14. The team was undefeated, 15 and 0, this season and this is the first time in history that this high school football team, which is located in the 18th Congressional District in western Pennsylvania, won the State championship. Not to take sides between last year's champions, the McKeesport High School football team, also in my district, but what makes this championship especially important is that USA Today ranks the Penn Hills team as the No. 5 high school football team in the United States. Congratulations to the players, the coaching staff, the supportive student body and families, and the Penn Hills community. I share your pride and claim the appropriate bragging rights on Capitol Hill. Keep up the team spirit and the motivation to succeed.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, as one of the new members of Congress this year, I am pleased to say that I think we have made some positive changes in this 104th Congress. There has been some things that I have been proud to support, reforms that have been made. I have been proud to reach across the other side of the aisle with some of my colleagues in the Republican Party to support some of those changes. People back in western Pennsylvania told me when I was running for office that good ideas come on both sides of the aisle. When something benefits western Pennsylvania and our country, I do not care if it is a Republican idea or a Democratic idea, we should support that. I have been happy to do that. But, Mr. Speaker, the unsettling fact is that partisan wrangling and political staging are starting to delay the appropriations process. We are behind on paying the Nation's bills. Of the 13 appropriation bills, we have only completed work on 4 of them so far. And 800,000 Federal workers were furloughed on Tuesday and remain off their jobs and wondering if or when they will be able to pay their bills. Millions of Americans are seeing an unprecedented Federal Government shutdown that, if it persists, will cripple the ability for the American people to move forward, to prosper, to be proud of the service that they receive from their government. Americans, what they are starting to see here, they do not like on either side of the aisle. They see disagreements on the budget, but our disagreements are not on whether or not to balance the Federal budget. They are on budget priorities. They see petty fights about state funerals, about which adding machine will get used, who gets credit in the public opinion polls, who gets blamed or the stories of the mere childishness in this institution. And they are seeing it taken to extremes. The American people want to see us be serious about facing the problems in front of us. This Congress, not the President, has an obligation to keep the government in business. Yesterday I visited with 70 students from western Pennsylvania, from Brentwood High School. They were here to visit the Nation's Capitol and see some of the Nation's treasures that we have to offer. They were not able to see a lot of those treasures because we are in a shutdown right now. That fault lies with the American Congress, with the Congress here, Democrats and Republicans, because we need to get our work done. We need to do our job because we hold the purse strings. I would like nothing better than to be home this week with my wife Susan and my four children. I think every Member in this House would like to be home with their families. But there are thousands of families nationwide who rely on the sole providers who work in this government and they, too, deserve to have the knowledge of whether or not they are going to receive a paycheck. And there are millions of families throughout the country who rely on the services that the government employees provide. I would just like to talk a minute about the balanced budget because we hear a lot of talk about the balanced budget. I am a Democrat who voted for the balanced budget amendment. I am a Democrat that supported the Stenholm budget resolution. There were over 300 of us that agree that we should balance the Federal budget. This is not a question about whether or not to do it. The argument is going to be about how we do it. It is going to be about priorities. It is going to be about whether we have tax cuts or whether we mitigate some of the pain in Medicare and Medicaid. I think we should have that discussion. I respect Members on this side of the aisle that feel deeply held convictions that there should be a $245 billion tax cut and what they are doing in Medicaid and Medicare. I happen not to agree with these gentlemen and I hold those convictions sincerely. That is what we should be talking about over these next months. Let us get this CR behind us. Let us get the government running again and then let us sit down and have the great debate that the American people want us to have on what our priorities should be for Federal dollars. Let us get on with our work.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the action taken by the House last week in support of moving the United States embassy in Israel from its current location in Tel Aviv to its rightful place in Jerusalem. As a cosponsor of the original House bill on this matter, I am pleased that we are able to move forward with this legislation in such a timely manner. Situating the United States' embassy in the Israeli capital is a long overdue acknowledgement that a unified Jerusalem represents the vitality of the nation of Israel. Jerusalem has been under the administration of the Israeli Government for over 25 years, and by moving our embassy we will add to the stability of this situation. Another reason I endorse this action is simple diplomatic protocol. Of all our hundreds of embassies throughout the world, from Albania to Zimbabwe, this is the only instance where the United States has not located its embassy in the host nation's capital. Certainly Israel, which is one of our closest allies in the world, deserves the respect that would accompany having our official diplomatic representation in their capital city. Furthermore, the relocation of the U.S. embassy is consistent with the our Nation's support for the ongoing peace process in the Middle East. I am a strong supporter of this process and am sensitive to any possible adverse impact that this or any other related action would have on that process. I am satisfied that the transfer of our embassy will not have any negative consequences in that regard. In conclusion, I am proud to be a supporter of efforts such as this, which are based on sound public policy goals and are accomplished in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2425, and to speak on behalf of our communities, hospitals, and the health of today's and tomorrow's senior citizens. If we are to bring about Medicare reform which will prove to be truly beneficial, we must first reach a consensus that reforms must achieve specified goals without creating new, more difficult problems. In the Pittsburgh area alone, there are seven hospitals which would face almost certain shut-down as a result of these proposed cuts. This situation is certainly exacerbated by the elimination of disproportionate share payments to these hospitals. It is neither prudent nor logical to make devastating cuts to Medicare in such an arbitrary fashion. The sound thinking, hard-working people of western Pennsylvania and across this country will tell you that putting the cart before the horse will get Medicare nowhere fast. It has been documented that both proposals we are considering today, H.R. 2425 and the Democratic alternative, will result in the Medicare trust fund being put on sound financial footing through the year 2006. However, the Democratic alternative saves $90 billion, all of which is put back into the Medicare system, while H.R. 2425 cuts $270 billion, far more than is necessary, simply to help pay for huge tax cuts we cannot afford. A recent national poll shows that 72 percent of those polled oppose Medicare cuts being made to pay for tax breaks. One has to question how making major cuts to Medicare in a quick fix effort to fund tax breaks could be construed by anyone as fiscally conservative. I urge my colleagues to oppose the ill-conceived and reckless cuts called for in this bill which will not only shake the current foundation, but will cause irreparable damage to the health of American senior citizens in the future.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, this is the point I am trying to make. It is my understanding that what the chairman wanted to do today is in effect lock us into a number, today, for [[Page H 9846]] next year's authorization. If I would vote for the gentleman's amendment, what I am in effect voting for is not only to raise these levels up to the Interior, but I am also locking myself into saying I will vote for $220 million for fossil energy next year.

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

Mr. DOYLE. So we will not have to meet as a committee then. We will just authorize 1997 tonight and the Committee on Science does not have to have any more authorization meetings. Mr. Chairman, I just do not think that is a good way to do business.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman that, if we approve his amendment today, would he consider all members of the Committee on Science, those that vote for his amendment this evening, would sort of be honor-bound to stick to those authorization levels when we meet as a committee and discuss 1997 authorizations? I am asking a question, if the gentleman would like to respond.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is the point I am trying to make and I would make to every Member of this body. We, as a Science Committee, have not met to discuss authorization levels for 1997. We are going to abdicate that today by taking the 1996 numbers and say, ``Let's use them for the 1997 numbers.'' Now, we may well [[Page H 9847]] end up there when we sit as a committee and decide authorization levels, but we ought not to do it today. I would like to do it in committee.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?