Michael Doyle

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, what I would like to see us do as the Committee on Science, No. 1, no member of the Committee on Science voted to authorize for 1997. We talked about 1996. That is what the vote was in the Committee on Science. We said if additional moneys were found per the Davis amendment and per the gentleman's speeches here, too, we would authorize at higher levels. We found additional money. The appropriators gave us additional money, and we are upping it. Now we are going to say for 1997. No member of the Committee on Science voted only 1997 authorizations, as the gentleman tried to state. We are going to state today we are going to set 1997 authorization levels, and we are all going to be honor bound by that. I would expect the gentleman would intend to hold us to that.

Mr. DOYLE. I agree with the chairman. The chairman and my amendment are similar in that respect. We both agree with that. Where my amendment differs is I am using the report language in the Interior appropriations conference report. I read it verbatim. It is my impression that the members of that conference and the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior are also committed to balancing the budget. I think I am just reading the language, not from any Democrats; I am reading the House conference report, which is Republican language and is consistent with what your Interior appropriations chairman has said, which is we will reduce these accounts 10 percent a year over the next 4 years. We are committed to reducing these accounts. It is just that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] proposes to do it in 1 year. We propose to do it over a 4-year period, both consistent with balancing the budget. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I wish the gentleman would not characterize it as us not wanting to balance the budget.

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

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, basically what my substitute amendment does is basically what the chairman does in his amendment; we raise the fossil energy and energy conservation levels up to the level in the Interior appropriations conference report. The only difference is for the year 1997, since we are doing a 2-year authorization, that we in 1997 authorize 10 percent less basically in accordance to the language of the House conference report which calls for a 10 percent reduction over the next 4 years. We just do that in 1997. It is basically the same as what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] does, with the exception being we are authorizing a 10 percent reduction in 1997 versus a reduction from $380 million to $220 million.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the chairman of our Committee on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], for his action in this amendment. But I would like to express some concerns about this amendment also. First of all, I think it is wonderful in this amendment that we are going to match the authorization levels in this bill with those contained in the Interior appropriations conference report. It is what we talked about doing in committee. It is what we talked about during the Davis amendment, and I commend the chairman for raising those levels. However, I do have some concern with the fact that we are going to authorize 1997 numbers today, and some of the concerns I have are with regard to the fossil energy program. It is my understanding that, under the chairman's amendment, that we would be taking fossil energy from $380 million down to $220 million next year, in 1997. I would like to read from the House Interior appropriations conference report, which says: The committee recommendation reduces fossil energy research and development funding about 10 percent below fiscal year 1995 levels. The committee intends to continue reducing this account by 10 percent a year for each of the next 4 years. So it seems to me that the language that I read in the House Interior appropriations conference report calls for a gradual phasing down of the fossil energy budget by an amount of 10 percent a year over the next 4 years. As I understand the chairman's intention, it is his intention to get that entire cut in next year's budget in 1997, as opposed to doing it gradually, if I understand the chairman correctly, and I cannot in good conscience support that type of a cut in a 1-year period. I do support the conference report, which gets us there 10 percent a year over a 4-year period. amendment offered by mr. doyle as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. walker

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

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is talking to one of the Democrats that voted for a balanced budget amendment. Raising this up to the authorization levels in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior is consistent with the House budget resolution asking for a 10 percent reduction.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of this Congress and the Nation a celebration which will mark the 150th anniversary of a community in the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. On October 15, the township of South Park commemorates a milestone for its citizens, for fellow Pennsylvanians, and the entire Nation. The township, once a bustling center of coal production in the United States, was not known as South Park prior to 1845. It now includes areas of Library, Broughton, and Snowden, PA. The community itself dates back to 1773. It began as many other communities in America began, as a family settlement which grew as neighbors built their homes nearby. It was the initial site of the historic Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, when citizens protested taxation of locally produced whiskey by the Federal Government. It is important to remember the times which shaped the economy, the political philosophy, the society, and landscape of this region in western Pennsylvania. The American Revolution, the formation of the U.S. Government, the industrial revolution, particularly the boom [[Page E 1866]] of coal and steel production, two world wars requiring the greatest manufacturing efforts of the people and resources, were all challenging times during which South Park citizens endured and even relished each challenge. The area witnessed firsthand the rise of the common laborer in pay standards, working conditions, and safety in the work place through trade and labor union organizations in the industries that continue today in South Park. Throughout its remarkable history the community of South Park has been known as home for many generations of hardworking and honorable citizens. The times have changed, but the people have remained true to their ideals--solid, persistent, and optimistic. It is my wish that the people of the township of South Park recommit themselves to retaining all of the attributes unique to this historic part of America. I know this Congress and the Nation join me in saying: Congratulations, South Park, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the township. I encourage you to maintain your community pride and wish you well on the occasion of 150 years as a historically successful community which future generations will certainly emulate.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I do so with a unique perspective on this matter, as I am the only member of this body who sits on both of the authorizing Committees affected by this amendment. I am honored to represent a district with one of the largest veterans populations, and I am extremely sensitive to the need to adequately fund veterans' health care. My father was a permanently disabled veteran. I could not imagine what my life would be like if he had not had access to quality VA health care. It would be my preference to fully fund the administration's request for VA health care, which the amendment before us would do by cutting $235 million from NSF's research account to achieve $100 million in savings, coupled with a $89.5 million in NASA funds. Despite my support for our nation's veterans, I cannot support this amendment because of its impact on the National Science Foundation. In the Science Committee, we have gone to great pains, under the leadership of Chairman Walker, to make the difficult decisions on funding priorities in order to achieve a balanced budget. I must tell the author of this amendment, since he wasn't present for the seven or so days that the Science Committee spent considering all the programs in its jurisdiction, that no federal agency enjoyed a greater degree of bipartisan support than the National Science Foundation. We are already cutting this account by $26 million from FY 95, and NSF as a whole is being cut by over $200 million from the current year. I am not sure why NSF has been targeted by this amendment, but I cannot endorse this effort to support one worthwhile effort by cutting a greater amount of funds from another important program. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, although the reasons of the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] are worthwhile, I have to oppose this amendment.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 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 shutdown as a result of these proposed cuts. 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. A recent national poll shows that 72 percent of the American public oppose Medicare cuts being made to pay for tax breaks. One has to question how making major cuts to Medicare in part to fund tax breaks could be construed by anyone as fiscally conservative. I urge my colleagues to oppose these ill-conceived and reckless cuts which not only shake the current foundation, but cause irreparable damage to the future stability of the Medicare system.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Tiahrt amendment, and in support of fossil energy research funding contained in this bill. First of all, I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Regula, and ranking member, Mr. Yates for their continued commitment to this important area. What is fossil energy research? We all know what fossil energy is, oil, gas and--our most abundant domestic resource--coal. But I get the sense that many Members who seem anxious to cut research in these areas do not understand the type of work that is going on. Especially in the area of coal research, we are talking about extremely innovative research that is being undertaken by small companies throughout the country. Without the help of the Federal Government, these small companies would be unable to undertake these important research efforts. Do we really want to accept the status quo in our ability to utilize our coal resources--or do we want to take advantage of our brainpower to make cleaner, more efficient use of our most abundant energy resource. By cutting the fossil energy budget, you are killing Advanced Clean Fuels Research in both direct and indirect liquefaction--work that is going on right now in Louisiana, New Mexico, California, New Jersey, and elsewhere. You are also killing work in Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems-- such as important work on Advanced Research & Environmental Technology that is taking place in Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Colorado, Ohio, and elsewhere. Let me also point out how much these programs have already been cut. The fossil R&D line in the bill represents a cut of over 100% from FY 1995 in a program that has been decimated over the last decade. Just last month, the Yergin Commission, an independent task force on strategic energy research and development, found that energy R&D is essential to the U.S. Economy and that cutbacks in R&D could put our Nation at risk. Task force Chairman Daniel Yergin, President of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, stated that, ``the wholesale demolition of [DOE's R&D programs] would not only hurt America's energy position but contribute to a `brewing R&D crisis' in the United States. In conclusion, I want to point out that Federal energy R&D is only about one-half of one percent of the Nation's annual energy expenditures. Since 1978, DOE R&D has been reduced by 75% in constant dollars. Let's not be shortsighted about our long-term economic well- being. Vote to maintain fossil R&D.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 79, the resolution to protect the U.S. flag from physical desecration. This year, we continue to commemorate anniversaries of the passage of 50 years since notable events of World War II. One of those celebrations marked the anniversary of the U.S. capture of the Japanese island Iwo Jima. Many of us can picture the famous photograph and bronze monument near Washington, D.C., and adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery. Of the many monuments, memorials, and truly powerful sights, the Iwo Jima Memorial, illustrating U.S. Marines raising the U.S. flag above a battleground covered with American casualties, has prominence in our appreciation of the flag. It was the wish of President John F. Kennedy to fly a fabric U.S. flag atop the mast being raised by the dramatic figures. Our flag is the embodiment of our national pride. It is what we use to identify our Nation at everything from community picnics to international events such as the Olympic games. It is used to cover the caskets of those who served in our military when they are interred. We witnessed the positive expressions and use of the flag when our pilot returned safely from Bosnia. One might ask, Why should not all Americans share the same reverence and regard for the flag as those six Marines did in 1945? Not all share the same feelings. But that is exactly what the flag represents--varying opinions. And that is why I believe strongly we must protect is from desecration. Many men and women fought to defend and protect the flag and the great Nation it represents. During our Nation's history, few objects have evoked such emotion, loyalty, and bravery. The U.S. flag is more than a fabric which flies over courthouses and post offices. It represents our beliefs, our dreams, our sense of responsibility and community. We should remember what it means to each of us today and pledge our allegiance to the principles it represents.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 368 I was unavoidably detained--testifying before the Base Realignment and Closure Commission and could not return in time to record my vote. Had I been here for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. How do you explain the deficit going from $1 trillion to $4 trillion during that same time? The deficit quadrupled in that time.

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

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, a quick question. You made the statement that when we have tax cuts, that that causes growth in revenues to the Federal Government and helps lower the 1980's when we had three tax cuts, I guess the same would hold true back then?

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in, and now represent western Pennsylvania and I can tell you that in our region we remember the 1980's very well--we remember the huge tax cuts that were enacted under the guise of stimulating the economy, under the guise of increasing revenues, but the corresponding spending cuts needed to keep the budget under control never took place. What happened? In western Pennsylvania we watched as the Federal budget deficit quadrupled from 1 trillion to over 4 trillion and brought on an economic downturn from which we have not recovered. Now we see that the new Republican majority in Congress wants to do it all again--enact huge tax cuts before we make the necessary cuts in spending. It sounds like the same mistakes made in the 1980's are coming back again in the 1990's. The Republicans want to enact a bill of massive tax cuts that they claim is designed to help the middle-class. Let it be perfectly clear that this is one Member who believes the best way to help the middle- class, and everyone else for that matter, is to reduce our monstrous Federal debt. Since we are just beginning to make some progress in this area, I do not believe it is the right time for any tax cuts and I am confident that most of the country and the people in my district would agree that we must stay focused on reducing the deficit rather than exacerbating the problem by enacting tax cuts that we cannot afford. Still, when we actually examine this Republican plan, my opposition to it grows even stronger because there is no question in my mind that these proposed tax cuts will in truth, benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle and lower classes! A Treasury Department study has shown that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will derive 20 percent of the benefits under this bill. In fact, over half--51.5 percent--of the tax benefits derived under the Republican proposal will go to benefit families with annual incomes over $100,000. This is plainly and simply--an outrage. Adding insult to this injury, the Republicans have made their ``tax credit for families with children'' nonrefundable. This means only wealthy families will be able to take full advantage of the credit while low and middle-income Americans lose out again. I heard one of my friends on the other side of the aisle say that the Contract With America wanted to make a statement that children have value, but with this provision, a family of three with one child, earning $15,000 a year would get a $90 credit, not $500. A family of five including three children, earning $22,000 a year would get $375 not $1500. I guess under the contract, a child's value is determined by the wealth of his or her parents. As I said before, I do not believe the time is right for tax cuts of any kind--but for the Republicans to propose a plan designed to help those who need it least while it hurts those who most need help is not only foolhardy--its reprehensible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this proposal, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, last night, during rollcall vote Nos. 257 and 258 on H.R. 4, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 257 and ``no'' on H.R. 258.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Deal substitute which approaches welfare reform head on by moving people from welfare to work. Under the Deal substitute, each individual must sign a contract which requires them to begin a job search immediately. Benefits would be terminated for any individual who refused to work or refused to accept a job. States would have greater flexibility to develop and administer welfare programs. By providing transitional medical assistance, the Deal substitute provides concrete incentives needed to ensure that a welfare recipient is better off economically by taking a job than by remaining on welfare. The Republican approach has no requirement for work. Even worse, the Republicans would slash the School Lunch Program to fund tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. The Deal substitute explicitly provides that all savings would be applied to deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, the American welfare system by encouraging work, not abandoning people--are seeing through the charade. I urge my colleagues to vote for genuine, constructive reform by supporting the Deal substitute.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of continued funding for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. LIHEAP is a block grant that provides funding for programs that assist low-income households with heating during the winter months. On February 22, the House Appropriations Committee voted to eliminate funding for the entire program. Lack of funding for this program would effectively destroy the ability of 5.8 million American families to pay their energy bills. Cutting LIHEAP would effectively put people-- children, seniors, disabled, and the working poor alike--out in the cold. In my State, Pennsylvania, 466,000 households would be affected. At a time when the crux of all the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle is the need for input and control for those on the State and local level--why is it that LIHEAP, a successful block grant providing an outstanding example of a Federal-State partnership with the built-in flexibility that allows States to design programs to respond to the heating needs of their citizens being decimated? The irony of this situation is rich, Mr. Speaker, but irony will not keep you warm--at anytime--and especially not during a Pennsylvania winter. The constituents of western Pennsylvania did not send me to Washington to participate in ideological shell games that employ a bait and switch mentality. All of us were sent here to ultimately improve the quality of life for those we represent. I urge for continued funding for the proven successful Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] cosponsored by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and also cosponsored by myself and several other of us who serve on the Science Committee. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the regulatory process does not become an eternal playground for lawyers. In asking agencies to use the tool of risk assessment, we are trying to ensure that regulation is based on sound science. As currently written, passage of this bill will allow any party to litigate agency actions before they have even been completed. Judicial review can be used to interfere in the scientific process and delay timely consideration of new medicines and other products. Currently, the courts can review a final agency action on the basis of whether the action was arbitrary and capricious. In this law, we are requiring agencies to use over 50 new specific procedures in carrying out risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. If an agency's action does not meet these new criteria, that error will be considered by the courts as part of their review of a final agency action. I believe that our Nation needs to use risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis, but they are relatively new processes which will undoubtedly be refined with the passage of time. The inclusion in the bill of a National Peer Review Board and Office of Management and Budget review of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis will provide adequate guidance and oversight to ensure that these tools are being properly utilized. The idea that lawyers and judges are somehow equipped to assess the quality of scientific procedures is almost humorous. Without this amendment, we will permit any party to engage in dilatory tactics by going to court to force an agency to provide substantial evidence that it is complying with each criteria outlined in this bill. If we demand that an agency justify its action before it has completed that action, nothing will ever get accomplished. In order to move our economy forward with new medicines, chemicals, pesticides, and other products, we will have to assign an attorney to every Federal bureaucrat because everything we try to do to improve our economic well-being and our overall quality of life will be litigated to death before the process gets off the ground. Under this amendment, judicial review will still exist, but it will occur at the end of the process. And as a gentleman from the Republican side pointed out during our consideration of this amendment in the Science Committee, this is the same arrangement that was agreed on for the unfunded mandates legislation. So if you supported the judicial review provisions of the unfunded mandates bill, you should be able to support this amendment. I am not a scientist or a lawyer, but I can assure you that litigation is not an essential component of the scientific process. Let us keep the lawyers out of the laboratories and judges from gauging the quality of science. Let the professionals make scientific and technical determinations. Once their action is complete, there will still be plenty of opportunity for the lawyers to work their magic. Vote for this amendment and stop the insanity.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Member who has supported the regulatory reform embodied in H.R. 9. Clearly, the time has come for a thorough examination of our regulatory structure and the scientific methods we use to make judgments about protecting public health and safety. The use of consistent, state-of-the-art science is a long overdue remedy for the plague of unnecessary and burdensome Government regulation. I am pleased that this issue is receiving the attention it deserves; however, I must express my dissatisfaction with the way in which the Congress has considered this legislation. In the Science Committee markup of this bill, members were not given the bill text until an hour after the markup was scheduled to start. Members were then given less than 2 hours to redraft their amendments to a bill that bore little resemblance to the original draft of title III of H.R. 9. We then spent the ensuing 10 hours marking up title III, at the same time that Commerce Committee was marking up the same title. Now, I have to wonder why either committee bothered marking up the bill at all. The bill we are considering here today has dropped language that was reported by both committees and now contains totally new language that has not been reviewed by either committee. These are not small technical subsections we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, there are some of the most important elements of this legislation, such as the judicial review provisions, which have been redrafted at the last minute with no substantive review. Among the new issues that concern me the most are the inclusion of permits in the scope of this bill's requirements. Most of these permits are State-issued. Are we now requiring the States to perform risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis on all their permitting? Mr. Speaker, that would seem to me to be an unfunded mandate. I would be more certain of this if we had had the opportunity to review this concern in committee, but since permits weren't mentioned in the bill we marked up, this issue remains unresolved. I sincerely believe that is the goal of Members on both sides of the aisle to make true progress toward easing the control of a distant Washington bureaucracy. In order to accomplish this, many of us on this side joined with majority in passing important unfunded mandates legislation. Now, through either carelessness or hypocrisy, we may be imposing many new burdens on State and local government. This rule provides for a mere 10 hours consideration of new, highly technical language to govern, I urge opposition to the rule.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, on November 8, the citizens of the 18th Congressional District in Pennsylvania sent me to Congress with a clear message. They wanted Government waste and inefficiency eliminated, they wanted the pork barrel, spendthrift ways of the past to change, they wanted our deficit brought down. I heard that message loud and clear, and I was proud to cosponsor the Democratic balanced budget amendment with Charlie Stenholm and work to have it passed in this House with the help of the Republican majority. I stand here today to express my extreme disappointment, that the very first spending package produced by the Republican majority since the passage of that balanced budget amendment would increase the 1995 deficit by $282 million and add $645 million to the deficit over 5 years. It is ironic that when Republicans want to spend billions to build star wars, there is no mention of balanced budgets, but if it is lunches for our school children, Republicans want to abolish it in the name of a balanced budget. Watch the vote today on the defense supplemental bill and we will see who is really serious about balancing the budget.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Illinois. This amendment will remove from the bill the provision which would overturn the 1990 Supreme Court decision in the Dole versus United Steelworkers case. The Paperwork Reduction Act can be an appropriate response to the problem of excess government forms, surveys, and paperwork collected by government for its own use. I support the ability of OMB to develop uniform information policies for government agencies in order to reconcile unnecessary and redundant information requests. However, the dissemination of vital information from private entities to the public is a completely different matter. Without this amendment we will be expanding the powers of the federal government, specifically OMB, to regulate non-governmental third parties. Prior to the Dole decision, OMB was able to function as a ``super regulator''--utilizing ideologically-driven actions to override the scientific and technical determinations of regulatory agencies. In one case, OMB sought to diminish the worker safety requirements of the Hazard Communications Standard which had been promulgated by OSHA. The Hazard Communications Standard required that companies compile ``material safety data sheets'' to disclose what hazardous materials are present in the workplace. It was because of the MSDS requirement that employees of a small metals processor were able to correct a dangerous situation in their workplace. This company used a variety of chemicals, including potassium cyanide, which was stored in close proximity to acidic cleaning solutions. When cyanide is mixed with acid, the result is a release of deadly hydrogen cyanide gas. Using a MSDS, the union was able to work with the company to identify the products with acids and isolate them from cyanide, so that a spill would not lead to a major accident. Overturning Dole will do nothing to make government more responsive or less wasteful. Instead, it would reestablish OMB as a federal ``superagency'', able to indiscriminantly use nonscientific political or economic judgments with little or no accountability. I support real regulatory reform, but giving OMB arbitrary power over all regulatory agencies is not my idea of reform.