Michael Doyle

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous artistic ability of a young man from my Congressional District, Brandon Barchfeld of Thomas Jefferson High School. Brandon is the top winner of the 2001 18th Congressional District High School Art Competition, An Artistic Discovery. Brandon's colored pencil piece, entitled, ``Alaina,'' is a beautiful, vibrant depiction of a young lady who is sitting at a desk while taking notes. He has captured a moment out of this individual's life and leaves us wondering what it is for which she appears to be listening so intently. It is a piece of artwork that leaves you mesmerized by the value of a moment in time. Brandon's artwork was selected from a number of outstanding entries to this year's competition. I hope that he and his family are proud of this accomplishment. I would also like to recognize all the other participants in this year 18th Congressional District High School Art Competition, An Artistic Discovery. I would like to thank these vibrant young artists for allowing us to share and celebrate their talents, imagination and creativity. The efforts of these students are no less than spectacular. I hope that all of these individuals continue to utilize their artistic talents, and I wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the cochairman of the Congressional Coalition for Autism Research and Education, it is my honor to speak in support of House Concurrent Resolution 91 which recognizes and commends parents and families of autistic children for their sacrifices and loving dedication to the demanding needs of caring for an autistic loved one. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my colleague on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for allowing me to manage the time; and I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), cochairman of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, for introducing this resolution and for his support of autism awareness legislation such as last year's ASSURE Act, which had the support of nearly 200 Members of Congress and is now public law. Autism is a family of closely related disorders commonly known as autism-spectrum disorders. No matter what particular disorder, autism is a devastating, lifelong impairment of childhood development that significantly impacts the lives of those affected, as well as the lives of parents and relatives. Autism deprives children of their ability to interact with others in ordinary ways. It robs them of the means to understand and communicate, and destroys normal reasoning skills. Autism forever changes the lives of individuals affected, and resonates deeply throughout the social, economic and spiritual lives of all family members. Mr. Speaker, this disorder affects nearly 1.7 million Americans, with recent evidence pointing to a prevalence rate that one out of every 150 to 170 children born has an autism-spectrum disorder. Autism does not discriminate. It affects all races and economic status with equal veracity. The disorder is more common than Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and many forms of childhood cancer. The symptoms usually become apparent by the first 2 years of life, with nearly 75 percent of cases occurring in the second year as normal reasoning skills fail to develop. The other 25 percent of cases usually occur in the 12-to-24-month time period in which they regress and typical autism behavior emerges. It is the latter ``regressive autism'' cases that have been linked to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. Most disturbing is the fact that we simply don't know what causes autism and autism-spectrum disorders, nor do we know any cure for the disorder. But the number of those afflicted continues to grow. For those of us who have not experienced autism directly in our families, it may be difficult to truly comprehend just how demanding and stressful raising a child with autism can be on a family. Just last Friday, during the first coalition information briefing, I heard a description of autism that, as a father of four children, really hit home for me. Mr. Speaker, imagine that tonight while here in Washington, someone secretly entered my colleague's home and replaced my colleague's son or daughter with another child that looked exactly like their son or daughter, but did not speak or acknowledge when his or her name was called; who found parental affections painful and repulsive. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if that child changed overnight and remained that way forever. This is autism, my friends. I have had a long-standing working relationship with autism advocacy leaders both here in Washington and in Pittsburgh. The impact of autism on families and individuals was first brought to my attention by Mr. Dan Torisky. Dan and I met in my early days in politics when I worked for a State senator, and from the first day I met Dan, I was impressed with his tireless and tenacious attitude towards finding a cure for autism. Dan was a past two-term national president of the Autism Society of America, and remains one of the most amazing advocates for autism that I have ever met. Dan knows autism on a very personal level. Dan's son, Eddie, is autistic; and like all families across America struggling with autism, from day one, Dan and his late wife, Connie, simply wanted their son to have as normal a life as possible. The Toriskys gave me my first comprehensive educational lesson on what it meant for a family to live with autism. I realized that the voices of local researchers, advocacy leaders, and parents needed to be heard by Congress so that they, too, could be educated about the needs for more advanced and dedicated research. Most importantly, I understand how frustrated parents of autistic individuals are when it comes to their legacy. Who will care for their autistic child when they are no longer here? Mr. Speaker, the cost associated with caring for and providing critical services to individuals with autism can be phenomenal. In my home State of Pennsylvania, the Autism Society of America estimates that we have 73,686 individuals with autism-spectrum disorders, which translates into about 0.6 percent of the total population. If you take into account early intervention, special education, transportation to special programs, respite care, housing and special programs for adults with autism, over the course of a year, it is estimated that autism costs Pennsylvania $50,000 per person. In my view, Mr. Speaker, Congress must confront the rising problem of autism on three fronts: cause, cure, and quality of life. We must continue Federal funding of advanced research into the suspected causes of the disorder, including efforts aimed at investigating the connection between late-onset autism and measles vaccinations, and identifying the genetic and biologic basis of susceptibility to autism. We must continue to fund research into the cures for the disorder that for the time being have helped us better identify and treat autism. Ongoing research has shown that the effects of autism can be mitigated if proper steps are taken to identify the disorder at the earliest age possible, and corresponding intervention programs are applied. We must also improve the quality of life for individuals with autism, while not turning our back on quality research into the causes and treatment. Autism lasts a lifetime, and often children with the disorder outlive parents. This creates a burden on the health care and social service systems nationwide, one that they are ill-prepared to carry. We need to care for and educate autistic children and adults, and provide properly trained staff and educators to meet the highly complex and specialized needs of these individuals. It is important that we take appropriate steps to reduce the disability associated with autism so that more individuals can work and live semi-independently. Mr. Speaker, it makes good sense to invest in research now, and passage of House Concurrent Resolution 91 is an important step because it presses for full implementation of the Children's Health Act of 2000, now Public Law 106-310. Particularly important is the establishment of up to three additional Centers of Excellence in Autism at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and up to five more Centers of Excellence to complement the ongoing biomedical research of the existing 10 NIH Collaborative Programs in Excellence in Autism. It is vital that we in Congress fund research programs without taking away much-needed funding to pay for new programs. I believe that any expansion of research programs must come with a corresponding expansion of funding dollars. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to help families dealing with autism. We must do our share because autism is not terminal, and 1.7 million families are a growing and strong testament that life not only goes on, but it can flourish, given strong support and an advocacy network. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing I just want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who has really been one of the leaders in this Congress for the cause of autism, and my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I think we all feel the same way. We do not want to take five steps forward and go 10 steps backward. We want to make sure that we fund and continue to fund the 10 existing centers as we put the five new ones online. This comes down to a matter of funding. We are blessed this year to be looking at surpluses in this budget. Surely, we want to make sure we are not robbing from Peter to pay Paul and that as we put these new centers online that we find the funding to do that, without taking any funding away from the research that needs to take place at the existing centers. Mr. Speaker, I hope we have a strong showing of votes in favor of this resolution for the 1.7 million individuals living with this disorder, of which 400,000 are children. In closing, I urge passage of House Concurrent Resolution 91, encourage my colleagues who have not yet joined the Coalition for Autism Research and Education Caucus to please do so.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary career of Dr. Thomas E. Starzl, the pioneer in the field of organ transplantation, who turned seventy-five years old on March 11, 2001. This year marks the 20th Anniversary of Dr. Starzl's first liver transplant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Thirty transplants were performed in that year in 1981, which provided for the foundation for a liver transplant program at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System (UPMC) that would become the largest in the world. Dr. Starzl earned his bachelor's degree in biology at Westminster College in Missouri and his medical degree at Northwestern University. Following postgraduate work at Johns Hopkins University, surgical fellowships, and residencies, Dr. Starzl served on the faculty at Northwestern University for four years before transferring to the University of Colorado School of Medicine. It was there that Dr. Starzl made history by performing the world's first human liver transplant in 1963 and the first successful liver transplant in 1967. While continuing to perform kidney and liver transplants, Dr. Starzl focused his work to develop ways to suppress the body's immune system to prevent organ rejection. In 1981, Dr. Starzl joined the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine as a professor of surgery. It was there that he utilized his new anti-rejection drug cyclosporine, which propelled transplantation from an experimental procedure to an accepted form of treatment. Under Dr. Starzl's unmatched leadership, the transplant program at the University of Pittsburgh grew into the largest and most active program in the world. To date, more than 11,300 total transplants have been performed through this program with approximately 6,000 of those being liver transplants. Dr. Starzl retired from clinical and surgical service in 1991 but continues to make important strides in the field of transplantation and transplant immunology. In addition, Dr. Starzl continues to share his knowledge of expertise in this field by remaining active as a professor. Dr. Starzl has had a tremendous impact and influence in the field of transplantation. He has received 21 honorary doctorates and more than 175 awards and honors, including most recently the 2001 King Faisal International Prize for Medicine. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Dr. Thomas E. Starzl, the Father of Transplantation. Through his commitment to furthering the capabilities of modern medical science, Dr. Starzl has not only saved countless lives, but he has helped establish the world- class reputations that western Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh, and the UPMC Health System all share in the field of medicine.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 801, The Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001. I want to acknowledge Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Evans, Representative Hayworth, and Representative Reyes for their steadfast commitment to fulfilling the promises we have made to our veterans and their families, and extend my sincere thanks for including portions of H.R. 336 as part of H.R. 801. Throughout my six years on the Veterans Affairs Committee, I have been a strong supporter for protecting the viability, and ensuring the longevity of, the Department of Veterans Affairs. My primary concern has always been to improve veterans access to quality health care services and to insure they are delivered in a timely manner. But my focus on the need to provide appropriate support for the veterans health care programs has never clouded my awareness about the important roles that adequate support for VA construction projects and medical research play in addressing this concern in a serious, thoughtful, and effective manner. This is to say that we should always be mindful of how the Department works as a whole and be cautious about characterizing an issue as having just one facet or affecting just one type of individual. In my view, only if we remain sensitive to, and forthcoming about, how we can best implement changes to current practices to better serve the veterans community can we truly fulfill the mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is why I took great note of the first hand experiences relayed to me by members of the Veterans' Widows International Network (VWIN) when they visited my office a few years ago. At that time, members of the Network detailed personal difficulties they had endured and strongly advocated for the establishment of dedicated informational outreach services for surviving spouses and dependents of deceased veterans within the Department of Veterans Affairs. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this organization, VWIN was established in 1995 and has dedicated itself to reaching out to veterans' widows to inform them of benefits for which they might qualify, to provide them with a point of contact for processing their claims, and to keep them abreast of changes. The Network has done an admirable job in this respect, but if you are like me you are probably wondering why the Department isn't providing these services. There are a whole host of challenges that the Department could argue that preclude them from improving adequate access to, and the timely processing of, such information, including the assertion that they are already doing a good enough job in this respect. But that just isn't good enough and that is why Congress should make it a priority to pass H.R. 801, as well as both H.R. 336 and H.R. 511 in their entirety. The heart of both H.R. 336, The Surviving Spouses and Dependents Outreach Enhancement and Veterans Casework Improvement Act, and H.R. 511, The Veterans Right to Know Act, is a belief grounded in the idea that one of our most basic responsibilities is to provide veterans and their family members with information about benefits to which they might be entitled. Indeed, the success of any initiative embarked upon sound levels of awareness and prudent oversight measures. I want to sincerely thank Representative Pascrell for being responsive to my concerns regarding the informational needs of surviving spouses and dependents when drafting the Veterans Right to Know Act. Their specific informational needs were initially addressed by language which would require the Department to provide information to dependents concerning benefits and health care services whenever a dependent first applies for any benefit under laws administered by the Secretary. This trigger mechanism is definitely a step in the right direction and I am pleased that it has been included in Section 205 of H.R. 801. But what about the informational needs of all the surviving spouses and dependents of deceased veterans who would not retroactively be affected by this effort? My bill, H.R. 336, addresses this dilemma in a very straight forward and reasonable way. Specifically, it would (1) establish as a national goal to fully inform surviving spouses and dependents regarding their eligibility for benefits and health care services under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, (2) institute a legislative mandate that surviving spouses and dependents be included in the subset of populations targeted by the Department for outreach efforts, (3) require a full range of outreach efforts for surviving spouses and require dedicated staff at regional offices to assist with their needs, and (4) require periodic evaluation of the Department's efforts to address the needs of eligible dependents. Given the concerns that spurred me to author H.R. 336, I am most appreciative that aspects of my legislation involving the expanded and clarified term of eligible dependent and the specific means by which the Department can meet their informational needs are identified in Section 204 of H.R. 801. I would, however, have preferred to also see included the cooperative effort text of H.R. 336 which speaks to the importance of encouraging all elements within the Department to work with private and public sector entities--most notably veterans service organizations and veterans widows organizations--to inform surviving spouses and dependents of deceased veterans regarding their eligibility. I would also have liked to see language speaking to the need to have staff at the local level available to assist these individuals with filing a claim, reconstructing incomplete records, and bridging language barriers included. These represent follow-up efforts designed to ensure that individuals fully understand and properly utilize the information they receive. In closing, I believe there are shortcomings in current outreach efforts conducted by the Department, and thus I support the related improving language contained in H.R. 801. I am pleased that members of the Committee have paid attention to the need to bolster the Department's outreach efforts and hope that H.R. 801 will be expeditiously signed into law.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today with a heavy heart to express my profound sorrow and sympathy for the victims of the Gujarat earthquake in India. This terrible act of nature destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, crippled roads and bridges, and unleashed raging fires. But, my colleagues, the most devastating toll of destruction resulting from last Friday's earthquake is not on the physical structures in India, but on the citizens of India themselves. Tens of thousands of Indian people were killed as a result of this earthquake, and a myriad of others were critically injured. Mr. Speaker, I know from my personal involvement with the Indian- American community in my congressional district and from my service on the Caucus on India and Indian-Americans that the people of India and the United States have long enjoyed a hearty and prosperous friendship. I am also very aware of the strong sense of community and social responsibility that Indian-Americans possess. When a tragedy of this magnitude occurs, the Indian people both domestic and abroad, rally this spirit of community and fellowship to help the plight of those suffering from harm. We too must answer this call to service and community, and reaffirm our support for the people of India in this time of dire need. That is why I became an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 15, which officially recognizes and encourages efforts to alleviate the suffering of the people of India. I fully support continuing and increasing the amount of disaster assistance provided to India by the United States Agency for International Development, and encourage other financial institutions such as the World Bank to provide economic assistance. While no amount of money could ever hope to replace the loss of life, we can endeavor to ease the suffering and help the reconstruction efforts of those survivors left to pick up the pieces. I am pleased that H. Con. Res. 15 passed the House overwhelmingly earlier this afternoon. Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me express my condolences to the victims of the Indian earthquake.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, today I apprise members of the House of issues that were raised during the May 5th Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition field hearing I chaired in Pittsburgh. This field hearing examined the future of the U.S. Steel and the role of Technology, and was held in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies Steel Showcase. I, along with Representative Klink, Representative Mascara, and Senator Santorum, gathered testimony from steel company executives and their partners regarding initiatives designed to increase the competitiveness of U.S. steel makers by developing advanced technologies for steel production. For the record, I am including an executive summary from the field hearing as part of my statement. The panelists at the Pittsburgh Steel Showcase field hearing described the role of steel in the United States economy at the beginning of the 21st century. In compelling detail, Robert Riederer, CEO and President of Weirton Steel, fleshed out the struggle to surmount challenges to the continued viability of an industry that remains as vital today to our national security and American manufacturing as it has in the past. Paul Wilhelm of U.S. Steel spoke candidly of the need to protect the environment without adversely affecting the industry. Collectively, from the panelists' testimony emerged a vision of a bedrock industry competitive in world markets, environmentally and technically advanced, but threatened on two fronts: waves of imports dumped by countries reeling from constricted domestic markets, desperate to prop up exports, and heightened environmental standards at home. In response to this discussion, members of Congress and panelists explored the following solutions: tighter enforcement of anti-dumping provisions, close monitoring of steel scrap to ensure the purity of recycled steel, increased funding for various offices within the U.S. Department of Energy for research and development of new steel production technologies, and tax credits for investment, research, and development. It is my hope that all House members will take time to read the full report as it contains a host of important information. And as always, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on issues in support of the steel industry. Executive Summary The panelists at the Congressional field hearing at the Pittsburgh steel showcase described the role of steel in the United States economy at the beginning of the 21st century. In compelling detail panelists like Robert Riederer, CEO and President of Weirton Steel, fleshed out the struggle to surmount challenges to the continued viability of an industry that remains as vital today to national security and American manufacturing as it has been in the past. Candidly Paul Wilhelm of U.S. Steel spoke of the need to protect the environment without killing the industry. From the panelists' testimony emerged a vision of a bedrock industry competitive in world markets, environmentally and technically advanced but threatened on two fronts: by waves of imports dumped by countries reeling from constricted domestic markets, desperate to prop up exports, and by ever tightening environmental standards at home. Panelists and Members of Congress explored the solutions: increased funding for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Industrial Technologies' Industries of the Future research and development of new steel production technologies, tighter enforcement of anti-dumping provisions, close monitoring of imported steel scrap to ensure the purity of recycled steel, and tax credits for investment and research and development.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). As many of my colleagues are aware, the amendment before us is the latest incarnation of the gentleman's perennial crusade to hamper important energy research and development efforts. At a time when all of our constituents have been rightfully concerned with our Nation's energy security, an area of great importance to our overall national security, I believe that a move to indiscriminately slash $45 million from energy R&D will produce unwarranted and detrimental effects that will only exacerbate the current situation and fester throughout the summer driving season. Let us keep in mind that the United States currently imports 54 percent of its crude oil from other countries, more than at any time in our history. If we do not take aggressive actions to alter this trend, by 2020 we could be importing 64 percent. In a recent ``dear colleague'' sent out by the proponents of the Sanders amendment, the claim is made that the intention of the amendment is to reduce our dependence on overseas oil. Now, how can this be achieved if $45 million is being moved away from research into areas such as fuel cells and methane hydrates, both of which represent abundant energy supplies, and transferring the funds to support the purchase of caulking, weather stripping, and storm windows? Now, this is not to say that we should not pay attention to improving energy efficiency of low-income households. We should, but not at the disproportionate expense of critical R&D efforts that will reduce our dependence on overseas oil as well as produce a whole host of other beneficial outcomes. Let me be clear. I have been a strong supporter of efforts such as the weatherization program and LIHEAP. So my concern about this amendment does not rise out of opposition to weatherization but out of an interest to achieve appropriate funding proportionality. Whenever one program of merit is pitted against another, it is critical for Members to move beyond the wordsmithing, smoke screens, and surface sentiment and to look to the facts of the matter. If Members take time to do a brief cost benefit analysis, they will find that supporting energy R&D efforts is the most efficient and effective investment we can make. Consider the following: Despite the fact that the weatherization program has not been authorized since 1990, its funding level has continued to receive increases. $128 million in fiscal year 1997; $124 million in fiscal year 1998; $133 million in fiscal year 1999; and $139 million in fiscal year 2000. While so many important and authorized programs are underfunded in this year's Interior bill, the weatherization program is slated for a $4 million increase. On average, the program weatherizes 70,000 dwellings a year, yet it requires just 40 percent of the funds be spent on weatherization, materials and labor. Fossil energy research and development, on the other hand, continues to do more and more with tighter budgets. Fossil energy has been essentially flat funded since fiscal year 1997 and this bill's funding levels represent a 2 percent decrease from last year's level. In response to this trend, FE has sharpened its focus and, as a result, has heightened its efforts with regard to high efficiency projects, including efforts to develop new and more effective technologies that will help U.S. producers recover more oil from domestic fields and to develop cleaner fuels to meet future vehicle emission standards. Without question, fossil energy is about a lot more than coal. In addition, FE R&D significantly contributes to your State, both in terms of funding and jobs. In fiscal year 2000 alone, FE projects supported a total of 248,575 jobs, something worth considering when Members cast their vote. Finally, I want to recognize the good work done by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), given the current budgetary constraints. Their leadership can always be counted on and is much appreciated. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, during the day on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, I attended the funeral services for Representative Stupak's son. As a result, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 190 through 193. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 190, ``yes'' on rollcall 191, ``yes'' on rollcall 192, and ``yes'' on rollcall 193.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I honor a very talented young lady from my congressional district, Elizabeth Rose Carroll of Springdale High School. Elizabeth is the top winner of the 2000 18th Congressional District High School Art Competition, An Artistic Discovery. Elizabeth's pen and ink entitled ``Petals in the Past'' depicting a veiled woman of a bygone era holding a bouquet, was selected from a number of outstanding entries to this year's competition. I know that, with her obvious talent, many successes await Elizabeth. I look forward to seeing ``Petals in the Past'' displayed along with the artwork of the other competition winners from across the country, and I am pleased to be associated with Elizabeth's artistic talents. Congratulations, Elizabeth. I wish you the very best of luck in the future.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of making it easier for more Americans to pursue the American dream. Owning a home and building a good community, in which to raise children, will become less difficult because of this bill. Neighborhoods could possibly be the most important aspect of a child's life. Neighborhoods dictate what quality of school the child attends; the amount of crime and social decay with which child comes in contact; and the services that are available to them in times of need. This bill will accomplish the very important goal of creating a financially vested interest in creating a good environment. Homeowners are aware that the value of their homes will decrease if the schools are not kept up. The value of their home will decrease if crime goes up. This bill will give the local citizens the economic incentives to be involved in mitigating social ills and increasing the quality of life. This bill contains a provision that will allow Section 8 rental assistance vouchers to be used as down payment assistance. This support can open the door to homeownership for many low-income citizens, and allows them to partake in the American dream. As we all know, being a home owner allows for housing tax credits and can be the only investment that many low-income folks make. Owning a home is a benefit to homeowners because they now have a significant asset. Their monthly rent check is now going to pay for their mortgage. The house will pay off in the end for them. H.R. 1776 will also rebuild our local neighborhoods by allowing teachers, police officers, and firefighters the opportunity to buy a home in the jurisdiction in which they work. In this time of economic prosperity, there is no reason why the very people who teach our children and serve and protect our citizens should not be able to afford homeownership in the town they work in. They have chosen a life of service and are intrinsic to the well-being of the community. Making it possible for them to live in the localities is good policy, because it gives them a reason to be involved on a personal level. It is a stronger motivation for them to help in the creation, the rebuilding, or the upkeep of the community they serve. I ask my colleagues to support this very important legislation that will bring cohesion to some disjointed communities and acknowledge the role that public servants can play in communities.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering H.R. 1753. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act, a five year authorization measure that will promote the research, identification, assessment, exploration and development of methane hydrate resources. As members will recall, H.R. 1753 was previously considered on the suspension calendar and passed by the House on October 26, 1999. Under the leadership of Senator Akaka, the bill was subsequently passed by the Senate in November of 1999. The version before us today does not differ in scope or direction, but does incorporate minor changes agreed to by all parties that have been involved in this most important energy initiative. In my view, the need for heightened methane hydrate research has always been critical in nature. But the attention being paid to the recent increase in oil prices and cost hikes at the gas pump has served to reinforce our nation's need to become less dependent on foreign oil and to enhance the use of our domestic fuel base in a manner that meets the requirements for cleaner fuels and reduced emissions. The potential for significant benefits to consumers, the environment, and business exist in methane hydrate research. I have previously sited the following information, but it bears repeating. It has been projected that U.S. gas consumption is expected to increase by 40% by the year 2020. Couple this with the fact that currently more than half of the present U.S. oil supply is imported and without natural gas production, our oil import volume would be much larger. But if only 1% of the methane hydrate resource could be made recoverable, the United States could more than double its domestic natural gas resource base. In short, when a new, abundant resource is found that meets a growing demand with a greater level of efficiency, consumers will not only have a greater selection of options, but more affordable costs as well. I am particularly proud of the existing research into this area that has been done by DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh, as well as the recognized efforts of Gerald Holder at the University of Pittsburgh. I am confident that framework, guidance, and authority embodied in The Methane Hydrates Research and Development Act will enable further examination into what could conceivably save consumers billions of dollars, make difficult national environmental decisions easier, and strengthen our Nation's energy security. Once again, I want to extend my sincerest appreciation to Senator Akaka, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Calvert, and Representative Costello for their efforts and support in moving forward with H.R. 1753, The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fox Chapel Area High School as they have been selected by U.S. Department of Education and The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) as a 1999 New American High School (NAHS) national showcase site. Fox Chapel Area High School is one of only 13 schools across the country that were recognized for setting a new standard of excellence for all students. They have earned this national recognition through the success of their school improvement efforts and the commitment of the school staff and community to high levels of student achievement. Specifically, Fox Chapel Area High School has been recognized for the following: an attendance rate of 96 percent; an average Scholastic Aptitude Test score of 1091, which exceeds state and national averages; an enrollment of 47 percent of juniors and seniors in Advanced Placement classes; and an eligibility rate of 86 percent of those students who took the Advanced Placement exams and scored high enough to obtain college credit. In the school year 1992-93, Fox Chapel Area High School received the honorable designation as a Blue Ribbon Secondary School of Excellence for displaying outstanding effectiveness in meeting local, state, and national educational goals. Receiving the honor of being named a 1999 New American High Schools national showcase site further demonstrates the overall commitment by the staff, parents and community to ensure that all students meet challenging academic standards and are well prepared for college, careers, and life. Congratulations Fox Chapel Area High School. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors to continually improve upon the quality of the education of our youth.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the final version of legislation that deals with a comprehensive and complex set of veterans' healthcare and benefits issues. Without question, this conference report on H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, deals constructively with a significant portion of the substantive matters considered at length by the Veterans Affairs Committees in both the House and the Senate. I want to recognize the efforts of Senator Specter, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Stump, and Ranking Member Evans for their demonstrated leadership in crafting collaborative compromises in the most productive manner as the conference allowed. This agreement makes significant steps forward in defining the VA's mission in a number of critical health care areas: Extended care, emergency services, mental health services, and chiropractic treatment to name a few. This agreement also moves in the right direction in terms of addressing the lingering need for additional national veterans cemeteries and long-term care facilities, as well as needed renovations at various VA medical centers. This agreement also provides constructive direction in the areas of veterans' education and housing, in meeting the needs of homeless veterans, and improving the administrative structure of the court of appeals for veterans claims. I am disappointed however, that many of the provisions that were originally included in the House version of the bill pertaining to employee and veterans organizations participation in various VA decision-making and planning practices were not made part of this final package. I also think that the conference could have produced a better work product in terms of providing strong language that speaks to the need for cost-benefit analysis, employee protections, stringent hospital closure guidelines, and heightened oversight measures throughout the entire VA network. Inclusion of such provisions would have greatly improved the agreement's overall intentions and would have made them less susceptible to inconsistent treatment system wide. So in summary, while the conference agreement is not a perfect piece of legislation, it is nonetheless worthy of members' support. And as Representative Evans pointed out earlier, the conference agreement in many ways represents the need to demonstrate our concerted interest in reaffirming our commitment to our nation's veterans. But as I have repeatedly stated, the most well intentioned efforts in terms of authorizing language are only as good as the amount of adequate funding that is appropriated. I have very serious concerns that next year we will find ourselves in the same vicious circle of logical debate. And the circle begins and ends with the need to have adequate resources to sufficiently support our responsibilities in meeting the needs of our veterans. It is my hope that all members who cast their vote in support of the conference agreement will maintain their focus on veterans issues so that in the next fiscal year we can reverse the course we have been on for far too long and begin our work on matters concerning veterans with enhanced resources, not severe budgetary cuts.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I also have a privileged resolution which I will not offer and will not ask for a vote on, but I do want to speak in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, denying a vote on this resolution denies the will of the majority of this House. A majority of Members on both side of the aisle, 228, are cosponsors of this legislation. This resolution is intended to respond to a negotiating ploy by Japan and a few other countries. These countries are trying to jump-start negotiations on the antidumping and countervailing duty laws mostly as a negotiating tactic. Japan would like the world to forget about their closed telecommunications, financial services and agricultural markets by raising false issues about unfair trade remedies. Failing to pass this resolution supports the trade objectives of Japan and not the trade objectives of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of this privileged resolution, and ask that we be allowed to have a vote on it.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard, at the appropriate time, on the question of whether this resolution constitutes a question of privilege.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to present a question of privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Calling on the President to abstain from renegotiating international agreements governing antidumping and countervailing measures. Whereas under Art. I. Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress has power and responsibility with regard to foreign commerce and the conduct of international trade negotiations; Whereas the House of Representatives is deeply concerned that, in connection with the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') Ministerial meeting to be held in Seattle, Washington, and the multilateral trade negotiations expected to follow, a few countries are seeking to circumvent the agreed list of negotiations topics and reopen debate over the WTO's antidumping and antisubsidy rules; Whereas the Congress has not approved new negotiations on antidumping or antisubsidy rules and has clearly, but so far informally, signaled its opposition to such negotiations; Whereas strong antidumping and antisubsidy rules are a cornerstone of the liberal trade policy of the United States and are essential to the health of the manufacturing and farm sectors in the United States; Whereas it has long been and remains the policy of the United States to support its antidumping and antisubsidy laws and to defend those laws in international negotiations; Whereas an important part of Congress' participation in the formulation of trade policy is the enactment of official negotiating objectives against which completed agreements can be measured when presented for ratification; Whereas the current absence of official negotiating objectives on the statute books must not be allowed to undermine the Congress' constitutional role in charting the direction of United States trade policy; Whereas, under present circumstances, launching a negotiation that includes antidumping and antisubsidy issues would effect the rights of the House and the integrity of its proceedings; Whereas the WTO antidumping and antisubsidy rules concluded in the Uruguay Round has scarcely been tested since they entered into effect and certainly have not proved defective: Whereas opening these rules to renegotiation could only lead to weakening them, which would in turn lead to even greater abuse of the world's open markets, particularly that of the United States; Whereas conversely, avoiding another diversive fight over these rules is the best way to promote progress on the other, far more important, issues facing WTO members; and Whereas it is therefore essential that negotiations on these antidumping and antisubsidy matters not be reopened under the auspices of the WTO or otherwise: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls upon the President-- (1) not to participate in any international negotiations in which antidumping or antisubsidy rules are part of the negotiating agenda; (2) to refrain from submitting for congressional approval agreements that require changes to the current antidumping and countervailing duty laws and enforcement policies of the United States; and (3) to enforce the antidumping and countervailing duty laws vigorously in all pending and future cases.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this afternoon to speak in support of the Gas Hydrate Research and Development Act. As has been noted, this bill is a 5-year authorization measure that will promote the research, identification, assessment, exploration, and development of gas hydrate resources. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his interest in moving forward with this bill. I want to recognize his efforts in drawing greater attention to a diverse range of important and timely matters, including the need for heightened gas hydrate research, that have come before the Committee on Science during this session. I also want to acknowledge the support that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking member, has given to the initiatives that are outlined in the legislation currently before us. Mr. Speaker, the Gas Hydrate Research and Development Act provides the necessary framework, guidance, and authority to enable further examination in what could conceivably save consumers billions of dollars, make difficult national and environmental decisions easier, and strengthen our Nation's energy security. I am proud of the fact that this effort has attracted bipartisan support in the House as well as in the Senate. Senator Akaka's companion legislation S. 330, which is cosponsored by Senators Lott, Graham, Craig, and Landrieu, was passed by the Senate earlier this year. Here in the House, I am pleased to report that both the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources reported the measure out by voice vote. I am also particularly proud of the inclusive approach that this initiative embodies. It instructs the Secretary of Energy to work with other agencies, institutions of higher education, and the private sector in conducting future gas hydrate research and development. I have always favored a consortium approach to such efforts as they not only prove to be cost effective, but in many cases help to accelerate the rate of discovery. There are many questions surrounding gas hydrates that must be answered, and to accomplish the necessary R&D activities will require a diverse set of engineering and scientific disciplines. I am confident that DOE's outreach efforts and the specific expertise in this area can be found at our Federal energy technology centers, in concert with the input from the other entities I have previously mentioned, that we can achieve our goal of producing the technology necessary for the commercial production of methane from oceanic and permafrost hydrate systems while at the same time meeting requirements for cleaner fuels and reduced emissions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has always been and continues to be a leading advocate for critical R&D efforts. I know I am not alone in counting the gentleman from West Virginia among the most distinguished Members of Congress who can always be counted on for his strong support and sound advice.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), who played an instrumental role in shepherding this legislation through the House Committee on Resources.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I too want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for his words of support and express my appreciation for his good work not only on science issues but on veterans issues as well. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the potential for significant benefit to consumers, the environment, and business exist in methane hydrate research. I want my colleagues to listen to and consider the following: it has been projected that the U.S. gas consumption is expected to increase by 40 percent by the year 2020. Couple this with the fact that currently more than half of the present U.S. oil supply is imported and without natural gas production our oil import volume would be much larger. But if only 1 percent of the methane hydrate resource could be made removable, the United States could more than double its domestic natural gas resource base. As numerous scientists, as well as the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology have noted, natural gas will remain a principal energy source well into the next century. This is partly attributable to the increasing pressure for clean fuels. As methane from hydrates is essentially a pure methane, which is free of sulfur, nitrogen, and other contaminants, it is the cleanest burning of all fossil fuel resources. Subsequently, its utilization could be a key factor in mitigating global warming concerns. Needless to say, when a new abundant resource is found that meets a growing demand with a greater level of efficiency, consumers will not only have a greater selection of options but more affordable costs as well. It is time we begin to avail ourselves of the potential resources brought to bear through intensive methane hydrate research, just as Japan, India, the United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, and Norway are currently active in doing through their individual methane hydrate programs. Mr. Speaker, as much as methane hydrate research is a matter of global proportions, it is of equal importance to almost every region of our country. While large deposits have been identified and studied in Alaska, the West Coast from California to Washington, the Blake Ridge offshore of the Carolinas, and in the Gulf of Mexico, activity and interest has been demonstrated in numerous other locations. In the area of western Pennsylvania that I represent, Gerald Holder at the University of Pittsburgh, and the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, have a long history in hydrate research. Efforts are also underway at Penn State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brookhaven National Lab, Texas A&M University, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology are just a few of the various other organizations that have a vested interest in methane hydrate research. I also want to make particular mention of the work that is being done at the University of Hawaii and again recognize Senator Akaka for his efforts in advancing similar legislation in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1753 presents a thoughtful and common sense approach to expanding future energy choices. Through continued pursuit of progress in science and technology, we can assist in providing future generations with an abundant supply of a clean and reasonably priced energy source. I urge my colleagues to support the Gas Hydrate Research and Development Act, and I thank my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his support and his help. Mr. Speaker, I submit the statement of Senator Akaka in support of H.R. 1753 for the Record. Remarks of Senator Daniel K. Akaka Regarding Methane Hydrate Legislation I believe that H.R. 1753, and the Senate counterpart bill, S. 330, are important energy research bills that Congress should enact this session. Methane hydrate research has strong, bipartisan support. Senators Lott, Graham, Craig and Landrieu have cosponsored S. 330. The discovery of methane hydrates presents a research and development opportunity with major energy security implications. The bill will serve the long-term goal of developing new energy supplies as well as the near-term goal of increased safety and recovery of conventional oil and gas. Significant, widespread deposits of gas hydrates have been detected, but have not been characterized, all over the globe. The data on this resource may surprise you. Worldwide, the amount of methane trapped in gas hydrate form is estimated to be 10,000 gigatons--twice the carbon found in all other fossil fuels and 3,000 times the amount of methane present in the atmosphere. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey estimate that 320,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas exists in methane hydrate form in the U.S.--a staggering resource. In the United States, on-shore deposits are found in the arctic regions of Alaska. However, deep sea methane hydrate deposits are the most abundant source of methane, occurring at depths greater than 300 meters. Marine geologists have identified large deposits off the coasts of Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, Oregon and North and South Carolina. Research is needed to determine whether we can produce natural gas from these vast reserves. Natural gas from methane hydrates will never be realized unless we undertake a serious research and development program outlined in these bills. The U.S. currently lags other countries in exploring this exciting new energy source. Japan and India have launched aggressive R&D programs to explore methane hydrates. Some believe that Japanese commercial production is only a decade away. Clearly we are falling behind in our efforts to understand this energy source. In the face of dwindling energy resources and increased reliance on energy imports, we can hardly afford to miss this important opportunity. In addition to potential use as an energy source, methane hydrate deposits also represent a challenge to conventional oil and gas extraction. Hydrates influence physical properties of ocean sediments, particularly strength and stability. Characterizing hydrate formation and breakdown is important for the safety of deep offshore drilling and other deep sea operations. Given these research, technology, and energy security considerations, it would be shortsighted not to invest in our future by assessing and developing gas hydrates. I urge you to pass H.R. 1753.